April 22, 2026 · Judiciary · 29,481 words · 10 speakers · 155 segments
The committee will come to order. Ms. Shipley, please follow the roll. Representatives Bacon.
Here.
Caldwell.
Here.
Clifford.
Here.
Espinosa.
Here.
Linnell.
Present.
Garcia.
Here.
Elty.
Here.
Soper.
Here.
Zocay.
Here.
Carter.
Excuse.
Mr. Chair.
Here.
All right, committee members, we have a little bit of an unusual day today. Two bills for action only. Hang on one second. This is. Okay. So we're going to hear two bills for action only, and then we're going to hear Senate Bill 5 after that, starting with where we left off, where we last left our heroes, Reps DeGraff and A.M.L. Bacon. Whoever would like to begin. A.M.L. Bacon.
Thank you. And so thank you, members. Where we left off, we were in action only. And so we are now left at the amendment phase. Yesterday, you should have received two amendments. They are both strike below. But today, we are going to move. Sorry. We're going to move L9. And with that, I move L9.
Okay, that's a proper motion. Seconded by Vice Chair Carter, who is now here.
Amal Bacon.
Okay.
Well, members, where we left off, actually a couple of months ago, we've been able to have quite a few conversations given the feedback we heard in committee. Ultimately, we pursued two pathways, figuring out what we can maneuver and how we can maneuver under the scope of our title with some opting in and opting out language. And then the other pathway we pursued with the amendment you see before you is to send the question, and this is a much abbreviated bill, send a question to the ballot. If any of you are not familiar, when we end bills, they typically have a safety or a petition clause. However, there is a third clause that we are allowed to put on bills, and that is referred to people under referendum. So for those of you who regularly ask for petition clauses, this is a giant petition clause of a bill. And so we want to share with you why we chose this direction and why we are going to ask for your support. We were able to bring in a panel of witnesses that this committee and quite frankly in this building had not seen and surely will not regularly see And what that means to us is that our communities are telling us something despite our political parties They also telling us something that kind of circumvents the tensions that we feel in this building. And so what happened here is evidence that our constituencies have a real interest in this topic. And given that we not only represent our communities, you know, structurally in this building, we do believe that to get outside of this building would support our community and that they would be able to clearly speak. Fundamentally, the question that we proposed in this digital age is if people know and have some sort of expectations around the privacy of their data. And what we see through polling, through questions, is that there is certainly a frustration out in the world with people struggling to know what data is out there about them, let alone who can purchase it and how it can be used against them. And so going back to what we saw from our panel of witnesses and everyone in here remembers, we saw everything from ACLU, RMGO, CERC, Soul to Soul Sisters, Institute for Justice that demonstrates that this is beyond the fringes of a question. So the next thing I'll say is we brought this forward and started the research on this last year, started reaching out in the interim because there is a national trend to push for digital privacy. We want the question to be unambiguous here. And so if you have not seen it, we have plenty of articles of movements of proposed legislation across the country that demonstrates we are moving in a similar direction. organizations from Project on Government Oversight, EPIC, Cato, ACLU, YouGov, with reporting from NPR, the New York Times, and The Guardian definitely have talked about how people are becoming more and more aware of not just government use, but the government's ability to purchase and use data against them. The thing that people are surprised about, even though we had a robust conversation on Fourth Amendment, is that purchasing data is not the same as compelling data. But to regular people, that doesn't make sense. The other thing that is highly talked about is the exchange of data and where people are getting it from. And so ultimately, I just wanted to share with you all that we are not alone in states that are legislating on this. Montana passed in their constitution an expectation of privacy around data in 2014. In 2020, Michigan passed a constitutional amendment doing the same. We know that multiple states this session alone there were 26 drafts of bills through NCSL research where states are opposing everything from law enforcement cannot buy geolocation data or browsing history So these bills and these questions are relevant I do understand that it is an evolution or what we believe is the next step of the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, we are the legislature sometimes and not the judiciary branch. I do believe our conversation when we are a committee, for those of us who are lawyers, felt more like moot court than it did the legislature. We understand where the case law is, the Supreme Court case law is about the Fourth Amendment. But as you can see through all of the states are asking the same questions and moving constitutional amendments. We believe that we have the opportunity and right to build upon the Fourth Amendment. actually that is conferred by case law, and that we can move ahead of the courts instead of waiting for a piecemeal approach and say that those in Colorado have the opportunity to decide what their reasonable expectation is in privacy. And so I will say, too, that the conversations we have had over time, we have learned some things, And I am willing to continue to have those conversations. If you look at the language, we are sending a question to the ballot, but we are sending the question to the ballot to create statute. This is not a constitutional amendment. Per our own staff, we are allowed to do so. but also what comes with the privilege of referring a statutory change is that it can be revised and there are opportunities to amend. And if you look at the language, we particularly say that the legislature may develop a statutory framework regarding access to and protection of this data. And if there is an interest to continue to have those conversations, my commitment is that I will be there. And I usually and regularly and it is evidence that I stick to my word. So with that, members, before I pass it off to my co-prime. Again. We have an opportunity to let our constituents decide. we talk about this topic in a way that deserves the feedback from our neighbors, perhaps unencumbered for some of the pressures and some of the things that we've seen kind of move as a matter of the rules in this space versus the policy. Our community doesn't have to be faced with a fiscal note that suggests over 100 FTE with a departmental difference. Our community doesn't have to be faced with in-building pressures. They can speak freely so that we can act accordingly. And our community is asking for the opportunity to be the voice on this directly and that we serve them in understanding the fundamental truth of what it is that they want to see and then move from there.
And so with that I will turn it over to my co Rep de Graff Thank you Last time we were not in this room but I think the way that why are we dealing with this bill and why are we dealing with this in 2026 and I just restate that we're dealing with this in 2026 so that we don't end up in 1984. Right now we have a third-party doctrine that was built around snail mail. You cannot escape having your life condensed into data. There is no opt-out and citizens do not consider that data to be abandoned. In our conversation and in the panels, one of the things that we're told repeatedly is heard repeatedly is that this was above, that this was a discussion beyond what we were presenting in the bill, that this needed to go more to even a constitutional amendment. This would be a compromise, it'd be taking it to the people, but keeping it in statutory language so it can be adjusted. We need to deal with this. So ultimately, we need to deal with this at the third party doctrine level itself. We heard repeatedly from the legal experts that the expectation of privacy was not reasonable. Now, everybody that I've talked to, those citizens whom we represent, Those citizens for whom our goal, our purpose, our only chartered purpose is to secure their rights. And one of those rights, a derivative right, would be the Fourth Amendment and the expectation of privacy. And they fully believe that their expectation of privacy is fully reasonable. When you tell them that our judicial system considers their expectation of privacy to be unreasonable, they are not happy about that. So people are okay with getting targeted ads, but if you tell them that the government can buy their data, can use their data however they want, they cringe. Because it is clearly a different game when a government that can restrict your freedoms, has a great deal of power over your life, can have that data. So the nuance of the third-party doctrine is definitely lost on citizens. They feel innately that their expectation of privacy, and I agree. We agree. So this is a way to elevate this decision. As my co-prime said, this is the ultimate petition clause. So this is not just an opportunity for the citizens to weigh in on this issue. It is a demand that the citizens weigh in on this issue. And from there, those citizens that we represent, then we can actually represent the voice of the people by understanding what they want, what they need, what they feel their constitutions entail. And I do believe that they will return with the understanding, with making it clear to us that they do feel their expectation of privacy is wholly reasonable.
Okay, committee members, is there any questions for the bill sponsor? Are there any questions for the bill sponsor on L9? Bill sponsors on L9. Rep. Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a change. Thank you for bringing this. So I'm reading through this. I guess my question is, it says a search warrant, personal data required, warrant required, A search warrant is required in order for law enforcement to access a person's personal private data, ensuring the individual protections granted under Colorado law. Can you give me the definition of what private personal data is? What is the definition of that, or who's going to create that definition?
Amal Bacon.
Thank you. to put it in context, private data is data that has not been made public. And that's why we put private personal data. There is data that has been made public in the sense of we publicly post it on Facebook. We allow people to have it. The term public is found elsewhere in statute. If you recall back to House Bill 1037, the other language, The bulk of the bill, I'm sorry, the bill did acknowledge what is already public data. That was widely spread information, if you remember, and has been given even through consent for it to be given out. And so that's what we mean by private as it is differentiated from public.
Further questions? Okay. Seeing none, is there objection to L9? Noting objection from Rep. Clifford. Ms. Shipley, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon.
Yes.
Caldwell.
No.
Clifford.
No.
Espinosa.
No.
Flannell.
No.
Garcia.
Yes.
Hilti.
No.
Soper.
It's on the amendment. Yes.
It's okay.
Yes.
Carter.
Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes 6-5. L-9 is adopted. Thank you. Bill sponsors, do you have any further amendments?
We do not.
Committee members, do we have amendments? Okay, seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Bill sponsors, wrap up.
Thank you, members. Sorry?
I was just calling on you to speak.
Yes. So thank you, members. Much of what I wanted to share in closing, I actually shared earlier. I just wanted to reaffirm that this language we have seen in other states, it very much mirrors, for example, Michigan's constitutional amendment run in 2020. And what that also means is that we have seen the aftermath. There has been plenty of time between 2014, 2020, and in all of the articles of late, where we can see that states are able to function. If you recall, we also talked about Montana's law that passed last year in regards to the same subject matter. And so this is an extraordinary step and opportunity for us to let our constituents know. And that I do believe supporting this bill is a nod to our neighbors, that we believe that there is an important question here and that the type of debate should be happen, happen out in our communities rather than in this chamber where we are kind of in a compressed space thinking about different things. that may not include perhaps what the interests of our communities are and that not an indictment and that not necessarily a question and saying that we don consider that but given the extraordinary circumstances of those who came to support it seemed like there was just strong evidence that our communities wanted to weigh in on this, in addition to the work and expertise we can bring. I do understand in having conversations with many of you that some of us think about different approaches to address this issue, whether it is through a privacy law or whether it is through a restriction on government. At the end of the day, the Fourth Amendment applies only to government because the Constitution was written and built in a way to restrict the government. And particularly, the Fourth Amendment has been a critical amendment to American culture. At the end of the day, the point of the Fourth Amendment, as we have seen in Supreme Court cases as they nod to it, even though they have not taken on this precise issue yet, they say that we have to question if there are reasonable expectations of privacy in our community. And again, reasonable is set by what does a normal person think. And as we move into a space where we can't even go to the grocery store without punching in our phone number, I didn't want to check my expectations of privacy at the grocery store. We are in the 21st century where to even buy food, to buy gas, to buy diapers, all of that information can be out there. And so we are in a space where we have to catch up the 18th century to the 21st. And there's no better group of people to decide what our starting point is going to be than all of our neighbors. And with that, members, that is why we pursued this approach. And that is what we hope to engage on further with our neighbors and with our stakeholders. And we sincerely urge an aye vote. RIP to graph.
Oh, you're good, okay. Committee members, or well, first, AML Bacon, a proper motion is to the Appropriations Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1037 as amended to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation.
Second. All right, that's proper motion, seconded by Vice Chair Carter. Committee members, closing statements. Rep Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is last minute for me, but I want to point out, and I asked that question specifically about what the definition of private personal data was. I think that's important because to know what that means, it gives validity to what you're trying to do here. And for me, you said you referenced the original bill, which I have. There is no definition in this bill for private personal data. Now, there's a definition for personal data, but not private personal data. And under the personal data section, it says basically personal data includes name. So, I mean, we're talking about solving crime. We're talking about, a child or someone has kidnapped a kid or public safety and that. And under personal data name is what considered personal data But again there is no definition I can find in here for private personal data which is different than just personal data in my opinion But the fact that we can even know a criminal or someone name is bothersome to me And I just don't feel that this is put together well. I need more context, more information. so for me I'm going to have to be a no just because there's inconsistencies and I just disagree with not knowing someone's name when a law enforcement is trying to keep the public safe that's my problem with this so that's just where I stand I stand for public safety
Rob Caldwell
thank you Mr. Chair and thank you bill sponsors I understand what you're doing here with the ballot initiative, and I think it is an interesting idea, and I kind of went back and forth on this because in general, when I think of ballot initiatives, I'm generally supportive of it, putting it to the people with certain exceptions on very complex and intricate topics. So, for example, the one I always like to use is when we talk about ballot box biology, right, with the wolves. The issue with that was, you know, we said, you know, the experts, the people working in this field who understand this the best, that your average person like me don't understand the intricacies and complexities of it. that's where I start to get concerned because then I start to wonder, okay, are we just going to turn everything in the legislature to a ballot question and put it to the people and have them make these kind of sometimes confusing decisions without all the stakeholding that we do as a body here and when we're doing our job. And so I kind of, I just, I run into that concern. And as my colleague pointed out here, private personal data, like if somebody's reading this ballot language and saying, okay, personal private data. I mean, where does their mind go? Does it go to their phone number or does it go to their Facebook posts or are they thinking, oh, they're getting my search history without my knowledge, you know, my browser on my phone or any of those things? Like where does a voter's mind go? And a lot of times what these ballot initiatives turn into is who can raise the most money to put the most advertisements in front of people and frame it in a certain way and spin it in their favor. So I understand what you're doing here. And again, I go back and forth on it because I like having things go to the ballot, but also I understand kind of the difficulties of understanding how complex the topics can be. And if people know what they're actually voting on when it's this detailed in something, getting into search warrants and what is public data, what is private data. And I just feel that that's our role here in the legislature to kind of dive into those details, working with the different stakeholders. So with that, I will respectfully be a no today, but I know you guys have been working on this very hard for a very long time, and I do appreciate it.
Rep Soper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors. I did want to let you know I supported Amendment L-009 out of professional courtesy I believe that from the sponsors wanting to try to amend their own bill that you should be given that courtesy I like what it's laid out I mean I think in general these are really good conversations to have There are things that do concern me though One is this is a major pivot from the bill that we heard and had witness testimony come and talk to And the more I've thought about it, the more I, you know, certainly am a little bit uncomfortable being able to support something in which there was no witness testimony. There wasn't people who came forward to talk about exactly this provision. Because if we had had witness testimony, here's what I think some people might have said. Polling shows 80% of Coloradans support stronger privacy laws to protect their privacy. But you would have also probably heard from some people that the minute you have someone put up a TV ad in which an officer says, I could have found this girl who was abducted, however, the ballot measure that's on the ballot would have prevented that, all of a sudden you might see polling turn. And my greatest fear is that if the people were to say no, this has a very chilling effect for our ability to be able to have meaningful protections around Colorado's personal private data in the future. because they will have just weighed in at the ballot box. Saying yes means something, but saying no means something as well. And I believe that that's also why we have a Republican form of government with Democratic elements. And we, yes, like to use our direct democracy at times, but there's other times when you really do want the experts at the dais to be able to dig in from every different angle. And I'm just a little bit concerned, the more I've thought about it, that if this were to go the wrong way, because there's always a lot of ifs whenever you go to the ballot box, that this could actually have the unintended effect of setting Colorado further back. Instead, I would like to tee things up and say what we really need is, you know, this moment in time, I believe, has caused a lot of stakeholders to finally get serious and come to the table and to use this momentum to move forward. We have started a major conversation, and any time you have opened up one of probably the most litigated areas of constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment, in protection of privacy and persons secure in their property, it takes a long runway. And it'd be nice if we could just fly this plane right away. But to be able to kind of create this moment where people do come together, because the reality is we're on the cusp of some major changes, especially with artificial intelligence on the horizon and continual big data. So with that, I'll be a no, but I do want to say that if the bill is not successful today, treat that as teeing things up for that longer runway.
Further closing comments? Reps. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for all of your work on this and for bringing this bill before us. I am looking back at my notes and I remember when this hearing ended, I said, my notes are going to be nonsensical to me later. And that is true. But I do just want to state that I don't think we have a full appreciation for the amount of, data that is collected on us, that outside companies know how much money you make, if you have anxiety, if you've lost a job, they know how long you linger on things, they know your movements around a website, and they truly know more about us than we know about ourselves. I mean, how many people here have felt like their phone was listening to them? but the fact of the matter is it isn't. It's just that conglomerate of data on us is that they can predict what we are talking about and what we are interested in to a point that a big box store was able to predict when their customers were pregnant before they knew they were pregnant. And so there is a real concern there when there is that amount of data on us being used to squeeze every cent out of us and to set pricing and advertising. But it's much more concerning when it's being used by the government to predict policing. And it sounds like this far off concept, but it is something that's happening now. There are algorithms that are built to assess threat levels. There are ones that are in use now to assess the risk of somebody missing court. and so I am so grateful for this bill because times truly have changed from the data that our law enforcement was able to have access to before and I think that all of us want our law enforcement to be able to obtain the data that they need to in order to do their jobs but also follow the constitution while they do that and that means getting a warrant when we are talking about data that has a legitimate privacy interest. And I thought it was very interesting in our conversations with opposition panels that stated that they believe that our legitimate privacy interests in the personal data that's in question in your bill. And so I don't understand why we had that opposition when they were sitting in front of us stating that there is a legitimate privacy interest in this data, and yet they want to be able to purchase it. That's just blatantly going around the Constitution. And I will say I do remember us questioning RMGO on the data they collect, and I do think, to be clear, that we need to stop the data collection practices that are happening in this country and the amount of data on us generally. But RMGO can't arrest me. If they could, I wouldn't be sitting here. So there's a different level of scrutiny when we are talking about the data the government is collecting on us. And so I want to commend the two of you for my favorite hearing this session. It really was nice to see two sides come together. We talk about bipartisanship a lot in this building. And many times that is an outside interest, bringing two people from different parties together to get a bill over the finish line, and this really felt like an organic effort to safeguard our data. And so I am very grateful for all of your work. I do wish that we were able to pass this and not make it a ballot measure. I think we have a crowded ballot, and so I will say I have a little disappointment there, but this is
such an important issue that I am a proud yes today. Rep Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I echo my good colleague to the right here comments about data collection The concern that I have is this bill is not about collecting data I had many, many conversations, spent a number of hours looking at the text of this bill, the different iterations. I have lamented over different aspects of it. We should be having a conversation about what data is being collected. We should be having a conversation about protecting consumers in this state, about how they've opted in, re-opting in, what data is personal and private, and how they protect that from the collection side of this equation. And in my outside the legislator accountability, we run a fairly large security company that has a number of employees that have access to very sensitive spaces, manage security systems for high end jewelry stores, things like that. And we have permission for some of those employees to monitor their background at an almost real-time level. So if they are arrested or if they have a major change in their credit file, we can see it. But when ACLU was visiting my office one day, I pulled that system up, and I ran my own background, and I was able to show them an insane amount of information. I mean, with two clicks of a button, I could get my own social security number. I could show you through early warning systems every deposit and withdrawal in my bank account through third-party data collection. That information is available to people. I'm not going to go through the steps it takes to get access to that data, but it is not a high bar, and it does not require specialty licenses, and it does not require government approval, and it does not require much of anything in order to get that level of data access on almost anyone. And it's insane to me. we should be tending to that. Everyone should be scared of it. There is nothing that you do that is private. On the other side, when I started to look at Fourth Amendment concerns, the need for a warrant for law enforcement to present evidence against you has not changed. And one of the things that I've had the biggest problem with with this bill the whole way through is first, it assumes that police are doing something nefarious. And I will give you that. I will say it is, at the lowest common denominator, likely happening somewhere, even though no one has brought anything to me that clearly demonstrates that. On the second thing, it doesn't mean that we still don't have evidence-based practices that require a warrant and terms like fruit of the poisonous tree. If I walk into a room as a police officer and see a pile of cocaine on a table I still leave that room go back outside and get a warrant before we search I might be able to preserve that bit or piece of evidence before it could be gets destroyed but I would still need a warrant before I did any further searches. Even if I see data, before I can take your liberties away, there still becomes an investigative process that the Fourth Amendment protections do every day still stand to protect people in those circumstances. And I have constantly said in this bill, it was originally titled the Fourth Amendment is not for sale. I couldn't find a Fourth Amendment concern here for me as somebody that continued to look and look and look on. Did we all of a sudden decide we didn't need a warrant? You still have to have a warrant for this information. So I'm, you know, concerned about where we went here. I really, really, really want to deal with the data collection side. I really want to see you work on legislation that deals with where the data is collected. The fact that law enforcement can purchase it like every other person is not my biggest concern here. My biggest concern here is that I can see my Safeway data back to 2005 from a third party company about every time I ever bought bread. I don't remember in 2005 doing some massive opt in for them to give me forever data. It concerns me that my automobile insurance changes based on my driving patterns, because I don't ever remember telling General Motors that they can share my driving data. with my insurance company. We're not tending to the data collection side. We're not tending to the root cause of this issue. We're not dealing with the people that are collecting the data and sharing it. What we're saying is that one subset must be doing something wrong with it. And I'm here to tell you, you still have to have a warrant today.
Rep. Espinosa.
I'm going to build off the last two speakers' comments, and I guess it goes back to my constitutional concern and the concern that I don't think the citizens are prepared to answer by the proposed amended resolution. That is that question of state action. I don't think the amendment, I don't think the discussions that we'd had previously deal with that fundamental issue that if the state is not the actor collecting the information, they're not engaging in state action. And as you acknowledge, the question becomes whether the state can purchase this information, and therefore that automatically triggers a search. And I think, as my good colleague just was describing, the fact that there's access to information that is available to the public, It concerns me that that information would only be systemically denied to law enforcement under this proposal. And or that a warrant, which may not be obtainable because you can no longer establish the investigative steps for reasonable suspicion, reasonable cause, probable cause. Sorry, I knew I was mixing my legal terms there. for probable cause if we disallow the initial investigative steps that are being taken by the data that is being used This is the same kind of tool going back to the question of what our founders had in the 18th century that would be permissible, perhaps. And I think there is going to be some case law coming out of the US Supreme Court on that issue. It has not been squarely addressed at this point. As I've said over and over again, my issue, much like my colleagues, is that I believe this goes to the larger privacy question of how citizens also have an obligation to be protecting that data and how it's our obligation as we've started to move forward in some surveillance legislation to limit and notify the citizenry as to when that surveillance or collection of data is happening. All of that in my mind is a separate lane. and I do believe that some of the examples that we heard, a search warrant would be triggered in those examples before the law enforcement could move forward. But there's a preliminary issue for me of whether the law enforcement is engaging in state action by simply purchasing the data. I don't believe they are. That's a fundamental Fourth Amendment requirement in my mind, and that was the concern I had with the legislation as a whole. Given the complexity of that issue and what's at stake, I don't believe that the resolution or the referral to the referendum referral helps the citizenry understand the complexities of what we're talking about. I also want to say that it's generally my preference not to continue to add things to the ballot when we have so many critical issues in a year when we're dealing with finances. And I think if this was an off-year election, there might be a different sense of being able to educate the public and have them vote on something like this. But in even years, the initiatives are limited. Money issues are limited in referenda to even-year ballot initiatives. So there's already going to be so much on the ballot this year for our voters to focus on with regard to revenue and issues that trigger finances. I don't want to be adding a lot of provisions to the ballot either. And so this taking away from what we're doing and the good work we've been trying to do to get to a place on this bill and moving this to the public seems like the wrong timing for me as well. So for those reasons, I will be a no today.
Okay. So first off, I do just want to echo Rep Sokai and say I really appreciated the conversation on this.
The presentation of this bill was one of my favorites. And as Amel Bacon said, it was reflective of a wide variety of views across the political spectrum in our state, as is demonstrated by the bill sponsorship. First thing I got to say is this is happening. We should not be, with respect to my colleague from Arapahoe County, we should not be pretending like this isn't happening. It's in the headlines. There are fights between Anthropic and the Pentagon about Anthropic not wanting to cooperate with the Pentagon to help build a police state. There are many investigative articles out there right now about the scope of the police state. The federal government has built and local governments, too, have built surveillance machines so vast. invasive and unaccountable that they would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. Law enforcement can synthesize a vast array of data and they can partner with companies like Paragon and Palantir, look into Paragon. Paragon looks into our phones. They can pull our photos, our texts, our location data, and they're doing that without warrants. Now that's happening at the federal level. The articles talk about that happening at the federal level. But if our interpretation of the scope of the Fourth Amendment is that just because you checked the terms and conditions box when you installed your dishwasher in your house and for some reason it had an app, that whatever it records is public as if you were putting trash on the side of the road, is ridiculous. People do not believe that they are signing up to be spied on. They do not understand that their private data can be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant. Our text messages, our location data, our Instagram messages, that stuff is the modern equivalent of papers. The Fourth Amendment has not disappeared because our interpretation of the word paper has disappeared. The text of the Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their person's houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Papers and effects 250 years ago, that meant letters in your desk drawer. We don't send letters by carrier pigeon anymore. But the way we keep our papers has changed. That doesn't mean our protections under the Fourth Amendment have changed. And also with due respect to my colleague from the North Side, the constitutional conversation here does not limit us. Our constitutional protections are not limited by the court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Courts have said that Colorado's privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment go further. And we are a separate branch of government. And we can go further still. And, you know, maybe people on this panel disagree with me that we should. And maybe the voters would disagree with that. But I highly doubt that because poll after poll after poll shows that vast majorities of Americans favor a warrant requirement for government surveillance. And I do not think that people think when they're checking the box that that means they're waiving the right to a warrant, especially when we are communicating almost exclusively on these devices. And so I am a strong yes on this. I also hear my colleague from Delta's concern if this went the wrong way, I do think that would be troubling. But research suggests if you're pulling near 80%, it's really tough to spend that down.
And with that, Ms. Shipley, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon. Yes. Caldwell. No. Clifford. No. Espinosa. No. Lanell. No. Garcia. Yes. Kelty. Respectfully, no. Zoper. Respectfully, no. Zocay. Yes Carter Yes Mr Chair Yes Okay on about a five to six that fails Vice Chair Carter
On a reverse roll call vote, I move to postpone this bill indefinitely.
Second. Object. All right. Seeing objection from reps, okay. Ms. Shipley, please call the roll. The motion is to postpone indefinitely. Representatives Bacon.
No.
Caldwell.
Yes.
Clifford.
Yes.
Espinosa.
Yes.
Linnell.
Yes.
Garcia.
No.
Kelty.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Zocay.
No.
Carter.
No.
Mr. Chair. No. Okay. On a vote of 6 to 5, House Bill 1037 will be postponed indefinitely. Okay, I'm going to hand the gavel to Vice Chair Carter and me and Zoka will go into the hot seat. Yes, they have a lot. That's what I was asking. No, they did. They did. Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BERRY. Representative is okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendments are being passed out right now. As a quick reminder before I go into my philosophical musings on arbitration during closing, this is a bill about making arbitration more fair. There are a few sections, one that we will be striking momentarily, but this is about making sure that when arbitration is compelled, that it is an accessible fair system for those participating. And I'm happy to just start with the amendments if that works for all of you. Proceed to the amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L2 Seeing that that a proper motion proper second we move L2 Representative's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What you're going to see in the series of amendments before you is the result of a lot of meetings, a lot of conversations, a lot of stakeholder work, And L2 represents one of those conversations with AAA and wanting to clarify which fees we are talking about in Section 3. And so there is a clarification that when we're talking about comparable fees to the fees you would pay in court, we are saying if it's a state court claim, it would be the fees that would be paid in state court. Federal court claim would be comparable to the fees paid in federal court. So this is a clarifying amendment. Ask for your guest vote. Members, do you have questions regarding L2? Any objections to L2? Seeing no objection, L2 is moved. L3, Representative Zocca.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L3.
Second. Second. That is a proper motion and a proper second by Representative Espinoza. please explain L2. L3. L3, I'm sorry, representatives, okay. Before you is again a result of conversations and this is in reference to section four where we are ensuring that arbitrators are neutral and are not discriminating against parties. There was a concern raised that we are interpreting discrimination by the result of the arbitration proceeding and that was not our intent. Our intent is to ensure that everybody is able to go to arbitration and have their case heard and so L3 clarifies that it is not the result of the arbitration that determines whether there was discriminatory action and we ask for a yes vote. Any further discussion on L3, Representative Espinoza? I just need one minute.
Any further discussion on L3?
Seeing none, any objection to L3? L3 is passed. The next one I have is L5.
That is correct, Mr. Chair. I move L5.
Second. Proper motion, a proper second by Chair Mabry. please explain l5 thank you mr chair in section five we are ensuring that when there is an award made in an arbitration agreement that that award is actually paid so that individuals are not forced to go to court to actually compel the losing party to to pay the agreement and we said that that should be paid within 30 days of whenever that payment is due in the agreement and we heard feedback that 90 days would be more agreeable and we were willing to take that feedback and so this changes 30 days to 90 days. Any discussion on L5? Seeing none, any objection to L5? Seeing none, L5 is passed. L6.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L6.
proper motion and a proper second by chair Mabry L6 representatives okay thank you mr chair L6 is probably the most painful amendment we are putting before you today but we understand that this section caused some disagreement, so L6 is striking Section 2. I will say that Section 2 says that except as preempted, a class waiver is void and unenforceable. I will note that most cases are preempted by federal law and much of what is preempted is decided through case law. And so this provision, in my opinion, was important to ensure that should case law change and allow for class waivers to be void, that this section would, in essence, kick in. However, because this seemed to be the section causing the most grief, we are in a showing of good faith willing to strike it. And so ask for a yes vote on L6. Any discussion on L6? I guess I have a question for the sponsors. When was L6 drafted? Are you calling me? Okay, thanks, Mr. Chair. L6 was drafted prior to committee whenever we were in committee last before you when we laid this bill over to present as an option to committee members. But L6 was not brought forward during committee? No, Mr. Chair, we laid over House Bill 1236. Okay. Members, any question regarding L6? Seeing none, any objection to L6? Seeing no objection, L6 is moved. L6 is adopted. L7.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L7.
Second. Proper motion and a proper second by Chair Mabry. Do you want to explain L7?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. L7 is a clarifying amendment. There was a question in Section 5 as to what date we are looking at as far as when payment is due. And so we are not saying that it is now 90 days from when arbitration occurred, but from whenever that agreed upon date was in the arbitration agreement. So this helps clarify that as a result of our stakeholding process, and we ask for a yes vote.
Members, any discussion on L7?
Representative Espinosa. Okay. I just want to clarify. It looks like, I thought I had written that L4 struck of a record. Did we not run L4? We're running L7 instead?
Representative Espinosa. I mean, Representative's okay. That is correct. I believe L7 is what the drafter suggested. Same intent. Any further discussion on L7? Any objection to L7? Seeing none, L7 is adopted. Sponsors, do you have any further amendments? No further amendments, Mr. Chair. Members, do you have any further amendments? Seeing no further amendments, the amendment phase is closed. Okay. Sponsors, wrap up. I'll take a brief five-minute recess. Thank you. Thank you. Committee will come back to order. Did you want to wrap up, Representative Zocay?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members, for all of your engagement on this bill. This bill is about making our arbitration system more fair. Now, when we presented this bill, I did not weigh in on my philosophical take on arbitration, but I will say that that is what the committee turned into, and that is what we were hearing from testimony panels and the conversation that we were having. And so because of that, I do think it is important for me to lay the other side of that on the record. So, I will just say that corporate interests work very hard to give class action lawsuits and plaintiff attorneys a bad reputation and to discredit them. And that has been the playbook because the reality is that class actions are the greatest tool that we as consumers have to hold bad actors accountable. but those bad actors who i will know are in the minority but do also exist have found it profitable to cheat scam discriminate and they need to keep getting away with it and the way to do that is if we all buy the line that lawsuits against them are ineffective unfair or just padding the pocket of greedy attorneys. And so I want to explain it this way. If somebody stole a million dollars from you, you would go get an attorney and you would pursue getting your money back. It would be absolutely worth it for you to do so. But if somebody stole one dollar from a million people, it would not then be worth it for each of those individuals to go after that bad actor. And that is where class action lawsuits come in That is where it makes sense to come together as a class and be able to share the costs and hold that exact same harm accountable And so what we have instead is those actors saying that arbitration has to apply and each of those cases must be settled individually because they know that each person is not going to go through the trouble of arbitration. They're not going to pay initial fees and go through all of that effort for a small harm. And that is how those bad actors get away with widespread harm that is individually small. Now, if you substitute stealing a dollar with race discrimination, a business can have a policy that all of their black employees get paid half of their other employees. They can have emails that outline their racist intent. And what you have is a group of employees that are not able to advertise what happened to them. The company is able to compel each of those employees into individual arbitration, which is binding so they can't appeal the decision. They get to avoid having their reputation tarnished. and each person has to go through that process without the knowledge of what is happening in those other cases without the knowledge of the widespread harm and each of those cases are heard individually on their merit so that employer is able to bring up excuses as to why that staff member was paid less and it becomes a conversation around that individual member rather than that widespread policy. Again, I don't think that this is the action of every corporate interest in the state, but the fact that it does happen means that we also need to have the tools to hold it accountable. Many of you may not know that the reason I ran for office is because of my deep concern about wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class and my desire to have a state where everyone working 40 hours a week can live a comfortable life. And I believe that the biggest impediment on that is the consolidation of corporate power and that bad actors are able to exploit workers and consumers. And the biggest driver of that and the reason why that can continue is because of the death of the class action lawsuit. It is truly the greatest tool that we have, which is why it is so attacked. Now, with all of that said, if I had a magic wand, I would not get rid of arbitration because I think that there are places where arbitration is a meaningful alternate dispute resolution. When you have two businesses that are coming to the table and in their contract negotiations agreeing that they will settle any dispute in arbitration. I think that that is a fair way to ensure that you have a decision maker that might have specialized knowledge of your industry. But what is happening now is that each of us do not know and could not even guess how many arbitration agreements that we have agreed to. They are buried in 20-page terms and conditions. It's in employment contracts, gym memberships, Anytime you've bought a flight, ordered groceries, called for a ride, you have agreed to a binding arbitration provision. Anytime you checked a box agreeing to terms and conditions you have likely agreed to binding arbitration It is so prevalent that when disney was facing a wrongful death lawsuit the husband was suing the parks for killing his wife he was compelled into arbitration because of the terms he had agreed to on his disney plus subscription and the only reason why they ended up getting their day in court is because they were able to publicize this and the public was so outraged that Disney withdrew their motion to compel arbitration. Now, to the bill. This bill is not addressing any of that. The death of the class action lawsuit and mandatory arbitration provisions are mostly federally preempted. What we are looking at before us today is in those cases, where arbitration is compelled is to ensure that somebody can actually go. That people should be able to actually have their case heard. And that means that fees cannot be predatory and so high as to limit somebody's ability to actually go to arbitration. It means that your arbitrator should actually hear your case and should not be discriminatory. and it actually puts more into arbitration because it is saying you shouldn't separately have to go to court for certain damages and should be able to settle it all in arbitration for efficiency's sake. And by the way, any attorneys that testified in committee that they can contract out of those damages are just wrong. That was law school 101 that if somebody is able to get a certain type of damages, you cannot just contract out of that. And so what we are trying to do is clean up this process, ensure that everybody is able to have their claim heard, and truly is a very basic step forward for fairness and efficiency, and we ask for your yes vote. Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thank you to my co-prime sponsor. I don't have a
lot to add. She basically covered everything that there is to cover. I do just want to note that so much of the conversation in committee just revolved around the merits of arbitration one way or the other. I will point out that the opposition in arguing that arbitration was good for consumers were mostly relying on a CFPB study that the press release announcing the study said that the arbitration agreements limit relief for consumers. And there were a lot of information in there about how few people avail themselves of arbitration compared to the courts and how limited relief is in those contexts. Again, the solution there is to pass the FAIR Act or something at the federal level. Our hands are tied in taking big transformational steps, but we can make sure this process is more fair. And again, I'll just re-emphasize that our ability to do transformational stuff here is quite limited. So this is a modest bill that makes the arbitration process more fair, and we ask for a yes vote. And a proper motion would be to the committee of the whole. I move House Bill 1236 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable A PROPERMENTATION. SECOND. THAT IS A PROPER MOTION AND A PROPER SECOND BY REPRESENTATIVE ZOKAY. MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CLOSING STATEMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ESPINOSA THANK YOU MR CHAIR Representative Espinosa Thank you Mr Chair I need to put on the record that I still am not in a place where I can support this bill
I appreciate your efforts at making amendments to the bill, but even in the provisions with regard to the discrimination section that you've amended, I have deep concerns with subsection now which should be letter I. It says discriminates against a certain party, type of party or attorney, or applies different rules, policies, or procedures based on how many claimants have filed similar claims or how many claims have been filed from the same attorney. That was not stricken as a part of your clarification. And I will just say, as a former jurist, that is so troubling to me. because if the same issues are at determination, the same result should be being made in those cases. And just because you have an attorney who might specialize in an area should not demonstrate that there's bias as a result of that. And so I know your amendment went to some of those issues, but I think you were complaining a couple of issues in that section in per se, in general. And then the other issue that just is the final issue for me is on page 5, and we had a large discussion of this in the committee with regard to exemplary damages. I am deeply troubled with bringing the exemplary damages into these types of situations or eliminating arbitration from that section of the law which has previously existed. I just think that that undermines the process. Overall, when I did the math on your example in the committee, I think I did it, it was about $84 or $87 per claim when you go to the class action. And I guess one of my concerns in terms of this dichotomy that you're setting up, arbitration is bad and class action is good, is sort of how I read some of what the purpose of this is, that somehow you'll get a fair result if you go to litigation, and the bill is pushing in many ways towards litigation against arbitration. I am concerned about that because I do think, you know, you said that we're trying, some people see this as a bill to enrich lawyers. I don't think that's your intent. I mean, you're good lawyers yourself. I don't think that's your job. I don't think that's what you're doing in this bill. However, I think that when you push people out of arbitration and give them the tool of class action as a relief, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the access to class actions. So on the one hand, the path you're opening is being shut much more quickly than I think people would be able to take advantage of it. I do think there are ways in a lot of the examples that were brought forward where you can get out of arbitration I am concerned about some of the adhesion contracts that I think are what you're describing in terms of arbitration, where people really don't have a chance. If you're buying a Hulu pass, you have no idea that that binds you to some accident that might happen in the Disney parks. That's an adhesion kind of a contract that could be addressed but is not being addressed by this bill. and for those reasons and I think some of the things that you articulated were problems that are not being addressed by this bill lead me to say this isn't the solution for the problem that you're articulating at least not for me at this point in time so I will be a no
representative kelsey
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, too, went back through my notes from the initial day that we had seen this and listening to a lot of the testimony and everything that went through. And I do know that, so from my notes, and refreshing my memory, you know, for me, I wrote down trial lawyer's dream bill, which then I put causes more lawsuits to be arbitrarily filed, that arbitration should definitely be used pre-litigation. I felt that the bill was unbalanced and confusing. I wrote down that the protections are actually set with the FAA, and really those cannot be changed. I believe that it limits class action lawsuits. And in the one section, there's actually no cap in Section 3.13.22-209. There was such strong opposition to this in committee and going through who was for and who was against. There were seven groups for it, 46 groups against it, which, you know, they represent thousands and thousands of people. There were eight pages of individuals that were for and against, and there were 146 people total. Only 17 were for it. 129 people were against it. And when I talk about the people that are listed that are opposing this bill, I mean, you're talking from builders to apartment association to medical association, bankers association. I mean, you even have in here the Colorado Competitive Council was included here. All the chambers of Arvada Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Civil Justice League was opposing it. the hospital you just go on and on Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce was against it, Douglas County Business Alliance was against it the list just goes on and on and Denver Metro Chamber Commerce was against it General Motors even piped in against it NAIOP the Northern Colorado Legal Chamber, the South Metro Denver Chamber so many and then there's more but I am a no on this I was a no then I'll be a no now just because I do believe that like and I agree with my colleague that I don't believe this is fixing
the problem that you're looking to do and with so many people against it I think they agree thank you
representative Garcia thank you Mr. Chair sponsors thank you for bringing this forward I also want to thank Representative Kelty for listing off that list because it's only reinforced my reason for voting yes. Everyone who was just listed are people who have a very self-interest in requiring arbitration in their contracts. And it is clear that people who are the harmed party are not the ones who benefit with arbitration. And your efforts to create a more balanced approach when there is harm is commendable. Thank you. I'm voting yes.
Ms. Shipley, please call a roll. Representatives Bacon.
Yes. Caldwell.
No. Clifford.
Yes. Espinosa.
No. Lanell.
No. Garcia.
Yes. Kelty.
No Soper No Sokay Yes Mabry Yes Mr Chair Yes Six to five And on a vote of six to five you on your way to the committee of the whole
I've got to get my stuff. Thank you. Well seeing as this is my bill and our vice chair just walked out to go to the bathroom we'll send a brief recess for five minutes I actually think that's appropriate too because this bill has a lot of witnesses so we'll gavel back in at three. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. to bring Senate Bill 5 forward to the Judiciary Committee today. This is a bill based in a very simple principle that government officials are subject to the law and that where we have rights, we also have to have remedies. The law has consistently affirmed that when government actors exceed their authority and infringe on individual rights, they can and should be held accountable. And so I want to start with a reminder of the moment that we find ourselves in. Immigration enforcement across this country, in my opinion, has always been problematic. But in this current administration, it has taken on a new level of cruelty. Our neighbors are living in fear because immigration enforcement has caused injury and death. to citizens and non-citizens alike. Luis Gustavo Nunez-Caceres, a 42-year-old from Honduras, died in ICE custody in January 2026 after being detained during an enforcement operation. Guadalupe Ramos died in March 2026 in an ICE processing center after being found unresponsive. In December 2025 alone, four people died within days of each other. Jean Wilson Brutus, Nenko Staniv Gantchev, Delvin Francisco Rodriguez, and Foyad Syed Abdukader, all in different ICE facilities across the country. Foyad Syed had complained of chest pain and inadequate medical care before dying. Nenko Gantchev was found unresponsive after months of declining health in detention. Outside detention centers, the violence continues. Ruben Ray Martinez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Texas. Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother and U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE agent after she had dropped her child off at school. And Alex Preddy, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in 2026. in court findings regarding the dilly immigration center which is in texas and is where many colorado residents have been sent it was noted that food served to children was contaminated with worms and mold causing many children to become ill and vomit repeatedly this is all from the court filings a family was vomiting and were told that if their daughter vomits more than eight times she can get medical care less than that she cannot. Families were reporting that their children are hungry, especially babies and toddlers. It was reported that workers laughed at kids' pain and staff laughed in child's face as he ripped up her drawing. A staff threatened to separate a family when their toddler wouldn't stop crying. They were crying from a toothache and an infective gum that they were refused treatment. Families continue to report that staff not only belittled their illnesses but actually mock them. Quotes from the filing were as follows, for any illness the only advice is to drink more water, the water is undrinkable. Every day I am crying, there is no food for our son to eat. I am so sad all the time that there is no baby food here. What we are seeing is a disturbing pattern of constitutional rights being violated in the name of immigration enforcement. There are widespread reports of force against peaceful individuals that we have all heard in this committee. Federal agents have carried out warrantless arrests and suspicionless stops, targeting individuals without probable cause, which courts and advocates have stated violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. People, including U.S. citizens, have been wrongfully detained by immigration agents, sometimes for days with little accountability or transparency. ICE has conducted courthouse arrests in violation of its own policies, undermining due process and access to justice. Look, regardless of how you may feel about immigration policy, we all here, and I've stated all of us, I've heard all of us here state that we believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution protects us all. And when the Constitution is trampled upon, there has to be accountability. Yet in recent years the ability to seek remedies for those violations especially in the context of federal enforcement has been a gray area leaving people without meaningful recourse when their rights are violated The Constitution does not mean anything if it isn't enforceable, and that principle applies to federal actors as well. The state has long served as a critical check, and we have to reject efforts to concentrate authority at just the federal level. senate bill 5 creates a remedy in our state courts we currently do not have accountability we currently do have accountability for state officials we have accountability for our peace officers but that does not reach federal officials senate bill 5 fills that gap by creating a state level cause of action so that when someone's constitutional rights are violated during civil immigration enforcement, they can seek relief in Colorado courts. More specifically, under 26 USC 1983, there is a right to sue for damages when state or local government officials, in quotes, deprive you of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. And so what we have before you is a sort of converse 1983. Because 1983 does not explicitly apply to federal officials, and we today have the ability to change that. And I do just want to note that the bill before you does not apply to one political party. This is about upholding the Constitution. So regardless of which party is in power in the federal government, if they are violating the Constitution, this serves as a check on them as well. This moment in history has exposed gaping holes in our systems of constitutional compliance and accountability. So we are here today asking for your yes vote to ensure that federal officials operate under the same legal standards that apply to every state and local official in the United States. Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I had a lot of stories in my remarks about awful things that are happening that I'm not going to dig into as much now. Rep Sokai did a great job of framing the crisis. But the reality is we are facing a constitutional crisis. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that every person in this country has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. And that applies to all persons regardless of citizenship. It has been a thread that has held together every other civil liberty we've had. It is under attack. And if that freedom is lost for even one group, it is lost for all of us. Right now, ICE and the vice president are publicly asserting that federal agents may enter our constituents' homes without warrants. ICE has paid Palantir tens of millions of dollars to build Immigration OS, a surveillance system that aggregates tax records, TSA facial scans, cell phone location data license plate reader feeds to target people for detention. ICE is buying our cell phone location data from commercial brokers without warrants on the theory that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply if the government writes a check instead of getting a judge to sign an order. ICE reactivated a contract with Peregrine Solutions, a spyware vendor, whose tools have been used against journalists and dissidents that can remotely hack phones, pull messages, photos, real-time location data. And late last year, the United States Supreme Court signaled that skin color accent paired together with the type of job you work in may be enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion requirement In that case a Latino U citizen named Jason was working on his car in a tow yard when masked agents ordered him to stop. They demanded that he prove he was an American three different times, racked a rifle at him, twisted an arm behind his back, took his real ID, which he never got back. That same operation was enjoined by a district court because the government was stopping people solely based on four factors, apparent race, Spanish language or accent, location, the kind of work the person appeared to do. Stops based on those four factors alone. That is racial profiling. That is a Fourth Amendment violation. That sort of activity is happening across our country and in Colorado right now. When violations like this happen, we have a duty to step in and say you are not above the law in Colorado. The law and the Constitution mean something in Colorado. Senate Bill 5 says that a person whose rights under the Constitution are violated by another person who is participating in civil immigration enforcement, whether or not under color of law, may bring a civil action against the person whose conduct was the proximate cause of that violation. A defendant who violates the Constitution is liable to the injured party for equitable and legal relief. This is a state court remedy for federal right violations. And this is called a Converse 1983 claim. It does at the state level what Section 1983 does against state and local officers. In both directions, the theory is the same. People whose federal constitutional rights are violated deserve a meaningful remedy in court. So let's be direct about the legal question here. Can a state create a damages remedy against a federal official? The answer is yes, and the answer has been yes since the early days of the republic. I think my colleague from Delta is going to be interested in the legal history here that I'm going to get into. and disappointed that our judge isn't here to hear some of this because I wrote it with them in mind. So courts have held that federal officials may be personally liable for damages when they violate federal law since the early 1800s. In 1851, in Mitchell v. Harmony, the court held that federal officials could be liable for damages even for conduct conducted beyond the lawful scope of their federal duties, even if it was related to those federal duties. In the 1850s, the court held that state courts have jurisdiction to hear damages in those claims. That principle has been reaffirmed again and again. In Johnson v. Maryland in 1920, where the court said an employee of the United States does not secure a general grant of immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment. In Colorado v. Symes in 1932, the court said that federal employees are not granted immunity from state court just because they're federal employees. In Wilden v. Wheeler in 1963, the court said when it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law. These principles were not overruled by Bivens. When the Supreme Court recognized a federal cause of action in Bivens v. six unknown agents in 1971, it was added to traditional state law remedies, not substituted for them. Even the dissent in Bivens explicitly said that the task of fashioning damages remedies is a matter for Congress and the state legislatures Over the next two decades the Supreme Court did work to dismantle Bivens in practice And in Egbert v. Buley in 2022, the court said, in so many words, that the responsibility for creating damages remedies belongs to legislatures, not the court. They sent the ball to us. And this is our chance to pick it up and stand up for the rights of all Coloradans. The West Fall Act does not block us. Congress made federal law the exclusive remedy for certain tort claims against federal employees, but Congress wrote an explicit carve-out at 28 U.S.C. 2679. The exclusivity does not extend or apply, this is in quotes, two actions against federal employees brought for a violation of the Constitution. The prime sponsor of that amendment on the floor of the House in the United States Congress said, if you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it. Congress left the door open for states to act on purpose. Now, I want to be clear about something because there's ongoing litigation in other states. This bill will likely be challenged in court. Illinois has passed a similar bill last year, and the Trump administration has followed suit. But this law has been written with that challenge in mind, and let's walk through the reasons why it is constitutional and likely to survive a challenge. First, under Article 3 standing, this law is not enforced by the governor or the attorney general or any state executive official. It is enforced by private citizens who have been harmed. Under Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, the 2021 case where Texas' Senate Bill 8 survived precisely because it was enforced by private parties. The federal government did not have standing to sue the state over a statute no state official enforces. Every federal appellate court to consider that question has agreed. Second, supremacy clause immunity. This doctrine has historically been a partial shield in criminal cases protecting federal officers from state prosecution when they are carrying out lawful federal duties in a necessary and proper way. But this bill is not about criminality. And last term in Martin v. the United States, the Supreme Court declined to extend supremacy cause immunity beyond the traditional criminal context. Even if it did apply, this bill only reaches conduct that violates the United States Constitution in the civil context. In the civil context, this is about a civil remedy. Violating the federal constitution can never be necessary and proper to the execution of federal law within the meaning of Article 1, Section 8. There is no lawful federal duty to violate the Fourth Amendment. There is no lawful federal duty to engage in racial profiling. A shield designed to protect the lawful execution of federal power cannot shield unlawful abuse. Third, and I think this is most important, and maybe I'm going to have to text this part of my speech to Rep. Esmanoza because this was the main point that I wanted to have a conversation with her on. Intergovernmental immunity. That doctrine prohibits states from discriminating against federal government or directly regulating its operations. Our bill does neither. It creates a neutral cause of action that applies to any person federally. federal, state, or private who violates the federal constitution while participating in civil immigration enforcement. It does not single out federal agents. It does not tell federal agents how to do their job. It tells them, like every trespass, assault, and battery law in every state, that they may not violate the constitution when they do this. The Seventh Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and others have all held that a state law, which at most requires federal agents to conform their conduct to federal law, imposes only an incidental burden. And incidental burdens do not trigger intergovernmental immunity. A state law does not unconstitutionally regulate the federal government by preventing it from doing something it had no authority to do in the first place. You do not have authority to violate the Constitution. Fourth, preemption. I've already addressed the Westfall Act. Congress wrote an express constitutional tort carve-out and meant it. There is no statute on the books in which Congress has preempted the field of remedies for federal constitutional violations during civil immigration enforcement. If anything, the opposite is true. Bivens has been narrowed by courts. The Federal Towards Claim Act has significant carve-outs, and the Supreme Court has openly invited legislatures to fill the void, and that's what we are here to do today. Note, Finally, that our bill uses a critical belt and suspender space in subsection three. The abrogation of immunities applies to the maximum extent permissible under the United States Constitution. If the court holds a qualified immunity or the supremacy clause, immunity is constitutionally required in some particular application. The statute accommodates that holding and the rest of the bill will stand. Combined with the severability clause in Section 4, this bill is built to survive provision by provision, application by application, constitutional challenge. The Constitution tells us that every person in this state, that the government cannot break into your home without a warrant. It cannot seize you because of the color of your skin or the language you speak, cannot use excessive force and shoot you in the streets. For decades, federal courts have been systematically closing courthouse doors on people whose constitutional rights have been violated by federal officials. The Supreme Court has told us the state legislatures explicitly it's our job to open a door of our own. This bill opens that door. It protects every Coloradans whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated in the course of a raid, traffic stop, warrantless injury, courthouse abduction, or surveillance-driven arrests. And with that, we will take any questions. Members, questions for the sponsors? seeing none I have a list of panels do you just want me to go straight down the panels there's only one first panel will be Courtney Fontaine Shalene Morales Iris Halpern Claire Noon or Noonie Liz Wang and Commissioner Pogue So we can start from my right, your left, state your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Commissioner Tamara Pogue. I serve as the Summit County Commissioner, and I'm also the chair of counties and commissioners acting together, or CCAT. I'm here today in support of SB05. At its core, this bill is about accountability and the protection of our community members. It creates a clear pathway for individuals whose rights have been violated during civil immigration enforcement actions to seek redress through our legal system. CCAT's members believe that all Coloradans, regardless of background or circumstance, deserve to be treated with dignity, fairness, and respect under the law. When individuals experience unlawful detention, questioning, or arrest, and have no meaningful avenue to challenge those actions, it erodes trust not only in specific institutions, but in government as a whole. Importantly, this bill explicitly excludes peace officers acting within the scope of their duties, consistent with state law, and it aligns with existing Colorado statutes that already limit local involvement in civil immigration enforcement. The fiscal analysis reflects this reality, indicating minimal direct impact on local government's liability exposure. Five ensures that when constitutional violations occur, particularly in contexts where individuals may already feel vulnerable, there is a mechanism for accountability. That accountability strengthens public confidence and reinforces the rule of law. From a local government perspective, trust between communities and public institutions is essential. Counties are on the front lines of delivering services, supporting public health and human services, and ensuring community safety. When segments of our population fear engaging with systems due to potential rights violations, it undermines those efforts and makes our communities less safe and less cohesive. We believe that in these most challenging times, we must all work together to provide a deterrent and enhance legal protections. SB5 presents the most pragmatic approach. On behalf of CCAT, I respectfully urge your support for Senate Bill 5. Thank you for your time and consideration. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Commissioner. If you can state your name and who you represent, you'll have two minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Shailene Morales. I am a senior staff attorney at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, or REMAIN. We are a nonprofit based in Westminster, Colorado, and the largest provider of free legal services to detained adults in immigration proceedings in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region. Over the past year, we have seen a troubling increase in arrests and detentions based solely on skin color, accent, or perceived nationality. That's why we strongly support SB 5. For the past seven years, part of my role has been meeting with individuals immediately after they are transferred into the immigration facility here in Aurora. While immigration enforcement is not new to Colorado, the accounts we hear have been increasingly alarming. In the past year alone, we have gathered extensive testimony describing abuse by enforcement officers during arrests, transport, and ICE custody, more often than not with no meaningful pathway to accountability. Importantly, these reports are not limited to undocumented individuals. They include people with varying forms of immigration status Recently one of our clients who has a green card was subjected to extreme force during an unlawful traffic stop Officers refused to show a warrant surrounded the vehicle smashed a car window onto an underage child, and forcefully pulled out all of the adults, including a U.S. citizen, and detains them for hours. All three adults sustained visible injuries as this child sat crying in shards of glass. While a horrifying story, this is one of many. I hear it every day. The Constitution applies to all people physically present in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, yet these rights are routinely violated, even while officers are informed of lawful status. We urge a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Halpern, state your name, who you represent. You'll have two minutes. My name is Iris Halpern. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Women's Bar Association. Thank you for hearing our testimony today, members of the committee. I am a lifelong civil rights and constitutional rights attorney, and the Colorado Women's Bar Association strongly encourages you to vote yes on SB 26.5. So last time I was here on behalf of the CWBA, we talked a little bit about the reasons the CWBA is invested in the passage of this law, its interests of rule of law and accountability, access to justice, and impact on families and our communities. So I'm going to focus a little bit on the accountability issue that's kind of at stake. So the Department of Justice even stated why individual accountability is so important. They gave four primary reasons. It deters future illegal conduct, incentivizes changed culture and practices at an institutional level, ensures proper parties are held accountable, and promotes public trust and confidence in our justice system. Tellingly, this guidance was archived by the current federal administration, and we can see the trend is in the opposite direction at this point in time. It wasn't by mistake that they pulled that guidance from the Department of Justice. So I want to get into the nitty-gritty just a little bit really quickly. You heard about Bivens. You heard about the Federal Torts Claim Act. Bivens did recognize an implied right of action for constitutional violations against federal employees. But in 2017, actually, the Supreme Court then, in a case Ziegler v. Zabasi, said they would not extend it to any new context. And so what we've seen since then, even in this specific arena where ICE or Department of Homeland Security is involved, the courts have refused to extend Bivens' implied right of action or to recognize one. including cases, the Supreme Court said, for example, where a 15-year-old Mexican national was shot, and he wasn't even on United States territory at that time. He was over the border, right? And then there's the Federal Tort Claim Act. So until 1988, it was perfectly acceptable under the Federal Tort Claim Act to file claims against federal employees. You heard about Westfall a little bit, and so that amended it and made it particularly difficult, but it was a pretty common and standard practice until that point in time. And the problem with the Federal Tort Claim Act even now, it was amended to eliminate private suits in negligence against federal employees, is that it expanded it for law enforcement and included intentional torts and misconduct, not just negligence. So other states have, in fact, I apologize on my own time. So other states have had laws on the books for many years including California and the Bain Act and that has been found to be constitutional They had that on the books since 1987 And so thank you so much The Colorado Women Bar Association strongly encourages you to support SB 26005 Thank you, Ms. Albert. Ms. Wang? Hi. My name is Elizabeth Wang. Sorry. Thanks. My name is Elizabeth Wang, and I'm a partner at Lovey & Lovey, which is a civil rights law firm. I live and work in Boulder, and I've been litigating and defending the rights of protesters and other individuals against law enforcement misconduct for nearly two decades. I was one of the attorneys that led the injunctive class action challenging federal agents' use of force against protesters, journalists, clergy, and others in Chicago last year during Operation Midway Blitz. Our case in Chicago showed the power of litigation to provide a modicum of accountability and transparency when federal officers come to town and act lawlessly. Perhaps the biggest lasting impact of our case is the voluminous record of misconduct, including tons of BWC video that we were able to obtain through discovery and which has been widely reported on. As you know, our case also showed the limitations of federal litigation as an accountability mechanism, though. Damage as remedies are all but nonexistent against federal officials for constitutional violations, and when all you can seek is an injunction, it's hard to continue the litigation when they just stop, such as they did in Chicago when they moved on to Minneapolis. Many of my clients in Chicago will never be compensated for the violence that was inflicted upon them in illegal retaliation for their exercise of their First Amendment rights. A robust and defensible damages remedy would provide a private cause of action to any person who violates federal law, including federal officials. And a neutral, non-discriminatory state remedy, such as this bill, that applies to any person who violates the federal Constitution would neither discriminate nor target legitimate federal actions. It would also further the ultimate supremacy of the federal constitution by helping people vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights. Targeting only unconstitutional action, which by definition does not further legitimate federal objectives, would not impede the lawful functioning of the federal government. Damage cases are important because they subject defendants to discovery, forcing them to answer for their misdeeds and giving injured parties an opportunity to publicly tell their stories. And so we urge yes. Thank you. Do I have a Courtney Fontaine? Yes, I'm on Zoom. Thank you, Miss Fontaine. You have two minutes. State your name and who you represent. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB5. Hi, my name is Courtney Fontaine and I'm the Legislative Policy Associate at the Institute for Justice. This bill responds to a serious problem. When a person's constitutional rights are violated by federal officials, as opposed to state or local officials, there is no meaningful legal remedy in either state or federal courts. This bill supports the Constitution. Under our legal system, constitutional rights are supposed to come with enforcement mechanisms. If a right does not have a remedy, it's not much of a right at all. Over the last several decades, federal law has greatly limited the ability of people to recover damages when federal officials act unconstitutionally. This bill restores a basic accountability mechanism that was once available at common law and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but that has now been largely gutted. It does not expand the rights or federal immigration policy. It also does not limit or impede lawful immigration policy. It simply enforces the Constitution, and it fits squarely within the federal law. Federal supremacy is not threatened by this bill. The Westfall Act explicitly allows this kind state action. In 1988, the Westfall Act was enacted to protect federal employees from personal liability for torts committed within the scope of their employment. It allows suits against the federal government and federal court and makes the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy available for people when federal actors commit torts. However, the Westfall Act has an important exception. It does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the government, which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This bill is therefore consistent with the Westfall Act and furthers federal law by upholding the Constitution. The state plays an important role in safeguarding constitutional rights. States have a responsibility to protect their citizens and should not wait for changes in federal law to act. A few states have already have state causes of action authorizing suits for damages for violations of the United States Constitution, including California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. I respectfully urge the committee to pass SB 5. Thank you. Is there a Claire Noon? Yes, I'm here on Zoom as well. Thank you. Please state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you. My name is Claire Noon. I am an attorney practicing immigration law, civil rights, and municipal advocacy in the Roaring Fork Valley in western Colorado. I work as a rapid response organizer and advocate, but I'm here testifying in my individual capacity. Federal immigration enforcement agents operate in our community under the presumption that they are above the law. No judicial warrants, no demonstration of probable cause, no consequences when they violate constitutional rights. That presumption does not stay federal. It spreads to the local law enforcement through task force arrangements. It normalizes warrantless arrests, course of interrogation, and information sharing that violates state privacy protections. It converts due process from an enforceable right to an unenforceable suggestion. This is how impunity becomes contagion. In the Roaring Fork Valley, local officers work alongside federal agents in a multi-jurisdictional task force. They participate in warrantless arrests, coercive interrogation, and information sharing that violates state privacy protections. They return to municipal duties carrying that operational assumption that constitutional constraints no longer bind them. The result is this contagion. The task forces operate with the operational guidelines without operational guidelines their own agreements require. Arrests happen without warrants. Windows smashed. Cars abandons on roadsides. Peoples disappear. No one comes back. Federal agents hold detainees in a facility that lacks a certificate of occupancy for over 21 years and fails to meet life safety codes for restrained occupancy. Municipal building officials who could enforce those codes claim no authority over federal operations. Local agencies blame federal authority and federal agencies claim state law does not apply. Accountability vanishes in the gap and constitutional violations become normalized as standard practice. When community members try to file complaints about warrantless entries, excessive force or rights violations, the complaints disappear. No investigation, no discipline, no due process. The community learns that constitutional rights are words on paper, not enforcement protections. The consequences cascade. People stop calling 911 because any contact with law enforcement might trigger immigration consequences. Domestic violence goes unreported. Child abuse goes unreported. Theft, fraud, and assault go unchecked. And children afraid to go to school. Parents avoid medical care. Women stay in violent homes, because calling police is more dangerous than staying. Employers commit wage theft knowing workers have no recourse The community becomes unsafe in both directions with criminals operating with impunity because victims will not report and officers operating with impunity because complaints go nowhere The people are the ones who suffer. In the past year, I have not seen a single immigration arrest that has come with a valid judicial warrant. This is happening in Colorado right now, and this bill would create a mechanism to stop these constitutional violations and stop the contagion that is happening into local law enforcement as well. I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Members, did you have questions for this panel? Representative Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for Commissioner Pogue. I'm curious about if you can maybe restate again just how this relates specifically to county actions and then what counties will actually do should this bill pass. Commissioner Pogue. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair, Representative, for the question. I'll say this. I'm not an attorney, but I am a mom, and my twins attend a public bilingual elementary school. After the first ICE raid in my neighborhood this fall, the attendance at our school, which is typically about 40% immigrants, dropped to 25%. Kids stopped coming to school because they were scared of what they'd seen in the neighborhood. So I think that's an experience that CCAT commissioners across the state share. We've seen similar things across all of our communities. And as such, we are committed to finding a solution to this problem. While we care deeply about our attorneys' perspectives, we want something that is going to create even a moment of pause in those actors' minds so that they hesitate before they propagate what we feel is chaos. And I mean, you heard the stories from the sponsors. We are comfortable with SB5 for a couple of reasons. The first is that our attorneys tell us it does not create additional courses of action for our employees, right? We want to make sure that our caseworkers, should they ever have to take a child away from a parent, are protected in that moment. And we believe SB5 continues the world as we know it in that regard. But I think the second reason we are most comfortable with SB5 is because we've convened a lot of conversations on this issue in search of a solution. And one of the conversations we had was with the attorney general's office. And we asked him if he was comfortable defending SB5, should it come to that? And he told us yes. Simply, that is good enough for us. And that's why we feel like this is the path forward and the best path forward for our communities. Representative Garcia. Thank you for that response. My next question is for any of the attorneys on the panel. I know that there has been, as we heard, one of the sponsors open with his opening comments and also just some of the comments that you mentioned, there has been this bill that has passed in other states, challenges that have been unsuccessful to the passage of this type of bill in other states. But I wondering if maybe you can help us understand why having a narrow bill like this that focused on unlawful immigration practices is still constitutional and why it still relevant to pass even if it not broader to the overall federal overstepping of our constitutional rights. I think Ms. Wong, Ms. Halpern. Ms. Halpern. Thank you for the question, Representative. So there are a number of other states that do have broader legislation that has withstood the test of time. I noticed, I think I noted the Bain Act in California. I don't want to mix up the data. It was either 1987 or 1988. That particular law encompasses any person, so similarly written in that sense, but isn't limited to civil immigration enforcement actions. It essentially says that any person, you know, municipal, state, federal, that violates constitutional, federal constitutional rights, and that one also includes state constitutional rights, has this cause of action for remedies. And so that has withstood the test of time. I think what is happening now is that there are two versions of this bill, is my understanding, that are kind of currently being looked at. There's a broader version, and there's this narrower one, which I think arose out of some of the concerns that the sponsors were mentioning and have really come to a fore, you know, kind of since the beginning of last year and during the Trump administration. So both of those, I think, are going to withstand constitutional scrutiny overall. Several other states have also, in addition to California, had broader statutes that have entitled victims to seek relief. That would also include, I think you heard, Massachusetts, New Jersey. So those have kind of already withstood the test of time. I know that there is some litigation in Illinois, which I think my colleague here can speak of a little bit, where they very specifically targeted only federal agents. And I think that's the hook that Trump was getting into. Here, this one is neutral. And so it talks about every person who is involved in these. By definition, that's going to be a majority of federal employees because of the nature of the content. But it is kind of neutral on its face. I don't think it gives the administration that hook. Representative Garcia? Ms. Wong. Yeah, so sorry. So the litigation in Illinois is, you know, the Trump administration did file suit against what is being referred to as the Illinois Bivens Act. And it's, I mean, nothing's been adjudicated yet. The Trump administration filed a complaint. Illinois filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the federal government did not have standing to sue the governor and the attorney general and such because they're not the ones who are in charge of enforcing the act. All the act does is provide a private cause of action. That doesn't answer the ultimate question of what happens when somebody does, what is going to happen when somebody actually does bring a private cause of action under the law. But I think that the important thing here is that this act states that, you know, the way that it is written currently, it says a person who has their rights that are guaranteed by the United States Constitution violated by another person. So I think the important part for the intergovernmental immunity doctrine is that it applies to anybody whether it a state or federal government official And simply because it is specifically targeted towards federal immigration actions is incidental. And I think that that is going to hopefully withstand litigation. Representative Garcia. Any further questions for this panel? Thank you very much. Next panel. Marina Cruz. Juan Gallegos. Commissioner Ashley Stoltzman Joy Altenew Consuelo Redhorse Tabson Sadiq I believe Ms. Cruz has a translator with her. Yes. Did you want to pull up a chair so I can? I think we have one more. Oh, perfect. Sorry. Because I have a. Is there enough room? Okay, it's fine. Consuelo Redhorse, Tapsom Sadiq, and Laura Ferenbacher. Okay. So, Ms. Cruz, state your name, who you represent, and you'll have two minutes, but I'll give you extra time because of the translator. Thank you. Buenas tardes, estimado comité judicial. Mi nombre es Marina Cruz. Vivo en Denver, Colorado, y soy parte de Community Force in Action. Nosotros servimos a la comunidad más afectada en relación al sistema migratorio. Today I want to ask you to support SB005, which allows us to respect the constitutional rights to the rights that are held by the federal authorities. We know that we are in difficult times when the community, their families, friends and people close to them are not safe or they don't respect their rights. Now, it is more high the probability that they are present in situations of interaction with agents, where the attention can cause damage irreparables or situations that neither the same agents are capable of handling and abuse of their charge and power. The damage to not be repaired leaves secuelas in the lives of the people involved. It is important to mention that when we are in danger, danger or fear, every person reacts in an immediate way, positive or negative. the immigrant community is in a process of knowing and exercising their rights constitutional and when I hear them themselves, what is it that they know if they are being respected if they are being respected, the most difficult thing as organization is to see this tendency that officials don't apply. The families are not prepared to be separated or to be treated humanly. This proposal allows us to continue to trust in that, without a status, No dejamos de ser seres humanos y que un ciudadano que porta una placa no le da el derecho de violentarnos o tratar de manera denigrante. SB005. manda un claro mensaje para que cumplan las leyes constitucionales y si no lo hacen, puedan ser responsabilizados en un tribunal de Colorado. Esto también nos permite que continuemos confiando que todos debemos estar sujetos a la misma ley. Les pedimos aprobar rápidamente el proyecto de ley SB 26005 y afirmar que en Colorado los derechos importan y la justicia es para todos. Nadia merece vivir traumas y miedos de por vida. Cuando se hace justicia, también se crea una reparación y sanación para quienes vivieron dicha injusticia y así puedan continuar sus vidas de mejor manera posible. Gracias por escucharme. Ms. Mata Good afternoon esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee My name is Marina Cruz and I live in Denver, Colorado and I'm a member of Community Force in Action We serve the community most heavily impacted by the immigration system Today I am here to ask for your support for SB005 a bill that ensures constitutional rights are respected regardless of the actions taken by federal immigration authorities We know that we are living in difficult times when the immigrant community, their families, friends, and loved ones do not feel safe or fear that their constitutional rights will not be held. The likelihood of encountering immigration agents is now higher than ever. Such encounters can be fraught with a tension that may cause irreplaceable harm or create situations that even the agents themselves are ill-equipped to handle, potentially leading to abuses of authority and power. when such harm goes unaddressed it leaves lasting scars on the lives of those involved it is important to note that when we are at risk in danger or afraid every person reacts immediately whether positively or negatively the immigrant community is currently in the process of learning about asserting their constitutional rights yet we hear them ask what good is it knowing our rights if they are not being respected. As an organization, the hardest part is witnessing this trend where officials fail to uphold those rights. Families are not prepared to be torn apart nor to be treated inhumanely. This proposal allows us to trust that regardless of immigration status, we remain human beings and that wearing a badge does not grant anyone the right to inflict violence upon us or treat us in a degrading manner. SB 005 sends a clear message. constitutional laws must be obeyed and if they are not those responsible can be held accountable in a colorado court of law it also allows us to continue trusting that everyone without exception must be subject to the same laws we ask that you swiftly pass sb 26005 and affirm that here in colorado rights matter and justice is for everyone no one deserves to live with the lifelong trauma and fear. When justice is served, it brings about a sense of reparation and healing for those who have suffered injustice, enabling them to move forward with their lives in the best way possible. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Ms. Mata, and thank you, Ms. Cruz. Commissioner Stolzman? Thank you very much. My name is Ashley Stolzman. I'm a Boulder County Commissioner, and I'm here today testifying in support of SB 5 on behalf of Boulder County. I currently serve as a vice chair on a National Association of Counties Advisory Committee on Immigration. It a consensus group Republicans Democrats independents working together on discussing debating immigration policy shortcomings And it a very fascinating group And this bill today is not an immigration bill Although if you have questions about the work I do at NACO, I'm happy to answer those questions as well. This bill is absolutely a law and order bill. And so we ask every member of the committee to please vote yes and support law and order as our county strongly supports it. The government must not violate the civil liberty of the people that it represents and it serves. Justice requires that there's consequences for injustice. The state has done a pretty good job of addressing gaps that we have had in local government and accountability over the last several years. But there is massive evidence, massive evidence, that federal agents are violating community members' civil rights with impunity. Immigration authorities are using increasingly dangerous tactics, such as engaging in unprovoked violence and using excessive force, including in some cases killing civilians and deploying chemical weapons. This is happening in multiple cities and multiple counties across the country. We need something that we can do in our communities so that community members, including U.S. citizens, have some sort of recourse. Boulder County calls on our state government to do something in this space. Our community members are calling on you to do something in this space. This is an important bill that will close a gap, a gap that we see in the news every day, a gap that's persisting in our community, and I urge the committee to vote yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Before we go to our next witness, can we also pull forward Mr. Arias online? Zulema Arias, go ahead and pull him forward. And I am just going to say Ms. Joy, and I'll let you say your last name, and you have two minutes. That's okay. Thank you. Your mic's not on. There you go. My name is Joy Athanasiu. I wanted to thank the chair and the members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. I'm an immigration attorney, but I am here testifying in my individual capacity, although I co-chair the AILA Colorado Legislative Advocacy Committee. I would ask you to please vote yes on SB 005. This law, which we believe is constitutional, would simply provide individuals who have been beaten or abused or their rights violated by federal immigration enforcement officers with a remedy, with recourse, with accountability. In January, I went to El Paso, Texas, to meet with nonprofits who were helping individuals out of the Camp East Montana ICE facility. Camp East Montana has quickly become famous for the death, brutality, and neglect stories that are coming out of that facility. The stories from El Paso were shocking, even for me. I know that we have heard lots of stories of individual abuse, but each story has impact. Whether it's a 16-year-old boy with broken ribs, whether it's an elderly woman with a broken collarbone, a 12-year-old girl who has been sexually abused. These must stop. Not only are we witnessing flagrant legal violations from these federal civil enforcement officers, but that has been green-lighted at the highest levels of this administration. White House and DHS have actually issued policies encouraging violence and encouraging the violations of the U Constitution In the past when DHS officers committed violations they were disciplined they were fired there was some measure of accountability. There are watchdog teams. There is a civil rights office within ICE. There is a detention ombudsman, but those have been decimated under the current administration. And now, as a state, we have to act. And please pass SB-005, 26-005. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Mishra Sadiq, state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Hello, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Juan Gallegos, and I represent myself here today. I am a person who, well, it's hard to even say that. I am a person who should be protected by the Constitution, and it doesn't feel like it. It feels like the federal government is intent on attacking people like me, and the only protection I have is this little card that I carry with me. with the amendments of the Constitution that protect me. But if it means nothing, then the U.S. means nothing. My people have been in this land longer than the Constitution has existed. And if the Constitution means nothing, then this country really means nothing. It's just a piece of paper. And if there's no way to hold abusers accountable, then there's no weight behind that paper, that ideal, that thing that makes the rest of the world see this piece of land as valuable, that everybody wants to move here from anywhere and build a life. But if the things that govern us are not, have no weight behind them, then what does it even mean? And so please do vote for this bill, SB 26005. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gallegos. Do I have a Consuelo Redhorse? Yes. State your name, who you represent. You have two minutes. Fantastic. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Consuelo Redhorse. I live in Silverthorne, serve on the school board in Summit County, and am a mom of an 18-year-old high school senior, daughter to two parents in their 70s who live on the Front Range, and a member of the Navajo Nation. I am here today to represent myself. I am testifying in support of SB 26005 because the people of Colorado deserve clear and forcible remedies if their constitutional rights are violated during civil immigration enforcement actions. As a mom to a daughter who has grown up in Summit County, who has brown skin and long dark hair like me, even though I try not to be that mom, I am concerned for her safety, especially in these times. I know that biases exist and racial profiling occurs, yes, even within law enforcement. I have experienced it, my daughter has experienced it, my parents have experienced it in so many different areas of our lives. It a fact that we live with So if harm came to my daughter and her constitutional rights were violated due to the fact that she has brown skin was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was targeted by immigration officials I would have the expectation that the person who caused her harm would be held accountable. This is the same for my parents or even myself. It seems ridiculous that in 2026, people of color should even have to consider that how they look, the type of job that they have, or the way that they talk can put them into a space where they are more likely to have their rights violated through immigration enforcement. About 25 years ago, I did an internship in Phoenix and had joked about driving while brown with my parents and sister. At that time, the sheriff's office had been actively racially profiling and illegally detaining people. Now we joke about driving while brown because sometimes things are so messed up that you just have to bring in humor to deal with it. But it hits differently now as a mom to a young adult and daughter to aging parents. If racial profiling occurs, if people are wrongfully detained, if excessive force is used if homes are unlawfully entered, if the constitutional rights of any Coloradan are violated during a civil immigration enforcement action, they should have a remedy and the person doing the harm should be held accountable. This is common sense. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with you, and I urge you to vote yes on SB 26005. Thank you, Mr. Redhorse. We have Azulima Arias. You can say your name, who you represent. You have two minutes. hi my name is Suleyma Arias and I live in Sama County I have the privilege of serving on the board of Mountain Dreamers a non-profit that supports immigrant families as well on the Sama School District Equity Committee they use advisory council and communities that care but more than anything I show up here as a family advocate working directly with Colorado families and today I am here in strong support of SB 26005 to me this bill is really about something simple accountability it's about the kind of values we want to live by and the example we want to set for our kids every day we teach our children that their actions matter that if they hurt someone they are consequences and how they and that's how they learn fairness respect and responsibility so the question that I keep coming back to is why wouldn't that be for everyone no one should be above the law when someone's civil rights are violated there should be clear path to accountability, no matter who caused the harm. Our rights under the Constitution belong to all of us, and they should be protected for all of us. This bill helps make that real. It also matters for trust. Families I work with want to feel safe, and they want to believe that the systems meant to protect them actually will. But when people see power being abused without consequences, that trust starts to break down, especially for our young people who are paying close attention. We want our children to trust the law. We need to see that it works fairly for everyone. That's why I'm asking you to please vote yes on SB 26005, not just for accountability, but for trust, for fairness, and for the message he sends to the next generation. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next panel, Christopher Nurse. Andrea Loya. Flora Canales. Reverend David Schwartz. . Uusman Baugh, Caroline Diaz, and Reverend Betty Gwynn. Gwynn. Mr. Nurse, state your name, who you represent. And you will have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and good afternoon, members. My name is Christopher Nurse, and I'm the political director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, a statewide alliance of organizations dedicated to ensuring that Colorado remains the safest state in the country to be an immigrant. And this afternoon, I am here testifying in support of Senate Bill 5. Members, I told a previous committee in the other chamber when this bill was first heard in February that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That principle, members, is as old as this republic, and today you all have the chance to do right by Coloradans whose federal constitutional rights are violated in civil immigration enforcement activities. Members, the Supreme Court has made it exceptionally clear over the years that expanding federal remedies for constitutional violations is a task for legislatures and not the courts. Congress, for its part, has explicitly preserved that right, separate from other claims, and Senate Bill 5 is Colorado's answer to that call. Members, Senate Bill 5 is a deliberate, sovereign exercise of the state's authority to provide a forum for the vindication of federally guaranteed rights. For immigrant communities across the state, members, this bill is personal. Families all over Colorado live with the daily fear that a traffic stop, a workplace raid, or a school pickup can turn into a constitutional violation with no meaningful recourse. When rights are violated, there must be a remedy. It is so important, I had to say it twice. Remember, Senate Bill 5 gives that remedy without creating new rights or interfering with lawful enforcement of the law. It simply ensures accountability when actors mess up. Members, if you believe in the oath that you swore to protect, preserve and defend the United States Constitution, a yes vote is the only correct vote you can make on this bill this afternoon. Members, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition strongly, emphatically urges you to vote yes on Senate Bill 5. This bill is constitutional. This bill allows people to ensure that their rights are enforced in state courts. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Nurse. If you can state your name, who you represent, you'll have two minutes. Hi. Nope. Hi, committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is Andrea Loya. I work for Casa de Paz Colorado. We are the only organization in Colorado that welcomes folks who have been released of the detention center. There's only currently one detention center. However, we hear that that is going to be changing. That is actually why this is even more important. I'm coming here today before all of you to respectfully urge that you vote yes on SB5. So for the last 14 years, most people have, we have known to come out of this facility, have gone out, actually out of state. That's actually one of the biggest reasons why we don't get funded. Um and this last year 2025 um it has been the year that we have seen most people coming out of this facility who are from Colorado So this bill matters This is happening. This attention is happening to your constituents. People used to look away at bills like this because they just said that it wasn't happening. Ice enforcement was not happening in Colorado. That's false. Last 2025, over 40% of the people that we welcomed were from Colorado. They are your constituents. 75% of the people that we have welcomed this year alone are your constituents. They are from Colorado. That is very new. So this piece of legislation matters because you cannot turn away to what your constituents are living. It also matters because it's just straight about constitutional rights. To those who are going to be voting no today, I respectfully want to ask if you have ever been to the geo facility yourselves And if you have not or have not actually ever encountered a person who is released from this facility, I also would really respectfully urge that you do so so that you can understand the impacts that this has on real human beings. This legislation just really opens up the idea of accountability. And that is what folks are really, this is the bare minimum. So please respectfully vote. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Loya. Flor Canales? Yes. State your name, who you represent, and you'll have two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 5. My name is Flor Canales, and I work with Movimiento Poder. At Movimiento Poder, our work revolves around trying to build a world where first-generation immigrant women and queer Latinas can thrive, where people can live with a sense of belonging and have enough abundance to keep each other safe. Through our work, we work closely with immigrant communities across Denver. We work alongside families navigating complex systems, often under conditions of fear and uncertainty. We hear directly from people who are doing everything they can to care for their loved ones, while also facing the risk of family separation, rights violations, and more. At Movimiento Poder, we support policies that ensure people have meaningful protections when their rights are violated, and that includes policies like SB 5. This policy is about closing a critical gap by creating clear pathways for accountability when immigration agents violate constitutional rights. At a time when many peoples of civil liberties are under attack, this bill reinforces that constitutional rights must be upheld. It establishes mechanisms that allow individuals to seek remedies when those rights are violated, ensuring that true accountability exists. And accountability here is about creating ways to interrupt that harm and shift the power back to the people. Right now, when federal immigration agents violate someone's rights, which they often do, the people most impacted have little to no meaningful recourse. That absence of accountability allows cycles of harm to continue unchecked. SB 5 also challenges the idea that enforcement systems should operate without consequence, especially when those systems disproportionately impact black and brown communities, immigrants, and historically marginalized individuals and families. So I respectfully urge you all to vote yes on SB 26005. Thank you. Thank you. Reverend David Schwartz. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I the Reverend David Schwartz lead minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Boulder and a member of Together Colorado I urge you to vote yes In January I joined 700 faith leaders from across the country who gathered in Minneapolis to bear witness to the impact of civil immigration enforcement. And despite our many theological and political differences, we stood united in the conviction that every person has sacred worth and the brutality of ISIS enforcement is immoral and unjust. What I heard in Minneapolis was heartbreaking and was consistent story after story of ICE agents breaking down doors without warrants, holding immigrants and citizens alike without charge or due process, using physical force against people, merely documenting enforcement with their phones at a distance. and after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, legal observers told stories of ICE agents pointing guns at them and saying haven't you learned? The message is clear you should not feel safe to exercise your rights what I heard from friends, colleagues legal observers, from neighbors of the seven years I lived in South Minneapolis, what I heard is that constitutional violations are happening again and again. It is not just a few bad apples. The stories you've read are merely the ones in which a photographer happened to get a good picture. As a pastor, the ethical imperative is simple. This is about human dignity. No matter what papers we have in our pockets, we're all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, and there are no exceptions. And as a citizen, this is equally simple. We are a nation built by immigrants and ruled by laws, and the government is not entitled to break the law. This is not a gray area. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend. Do we have a... Usman Ba. Uzi, state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Usman Ba. I am here as a corporate member, as well as a program director with the African Leadership Group. I am also an immigrant myself. I work closely with immigrant communities who call Colorado home, parents, workers, students, and people of faith. These are people who make every day trying to do the right thing, trying to survive, trying to contribute, trying to live with dignity in the only place we call home here right now. Senate Bill 26005 matters because too many people in our communities are living with fear that no one should have to carry. I myself live with fear sometimes. I know an individual who followed every protocol set for him as an immigrant. He obtained his work permit, had no criminal record, actively involved in our community, led workshop while waiting for his court hearing. Despite this, ICE followed him home, stopped him, arrested him with no justification. This was clear violation of his constitutional rights. This individual needed some sort of civil remedies for the pain and trauma caused. I also know a permanent resident who was arrested without a cause, violently tackled to the ground, resulting in harm despite committing no crime. These individuals are not criminals. They are community members, workers, and leaders who deserve due process, dignity, and the full protection of the Constitution. No one should live in fear simply because of existence and contributing to their community. When constitutional rights are violated, there needs to be accountability. I believe dignity and accountability are not an option of values They are fundamental values Our law should reflect that when someone rights are valued there should be a sensible way to seek justice I urge y'all to vote yes on Senate Bill 26 for accountability and dignity for our community members. It's been heartbreaking for me just seeing so many in our community members impacted by this. There should be a due process. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a Reverend Betty Nguyen? Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Reverend Betty Nguyen, and I'm a member of Together Colorado and a United Methodist clergywoman serving on the staff of the Mount Sky Conference, as well as the pastoral staff at Broomfield United Methodist Church. I come to you today to urge you to vote yes on SB 26005. I'm a Vietnamese American born in Grand Rapids, Michigan to parents who were refugees, boat people, who fled Vietnam seeking religious freedom and safety. My parents prayed that they would land in a country that believed in freedom, opportunity, and community, and the United States welcomed them. My parents began working in strawberry fields and factories and eventually served as pastors in our community. my family and I remain deeply grateful that this country has now become home. And yet over the last few years, I've begun to wonder if we lost our way. I ask questions that I've never expected to ask before. Am I still welcomed here? Do I belong? And am I safe? I continue to carry my passport with me, not because I trust it will protect me, but as a comfort in a time of uncertainty. I know many siblings, Black, Indigenous, persons of color who carry documents with them everywhere out of fear to work, to school, to house of worship, and even to the grocery store. Across our communities, we continue hearing stories and witnessing the harm caused by federal agents. The America that opened its arm to my parents is now unrecognizable to me. Though I'm grounded in my faith, I confess I am scared and feel lonely and terrorized. My faith teaches me that everyone is of sacred worth. Psalm 139 reminds us, For it was you who were formed in inward parts. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I'm fearfully and wonderfully made. That's human dignity. And so SB 005 is about repair and remedy. It affirms that no one is above the Constitution. If the government expects people to follow the law, it also must respect the Constitution. So I urge you to vote yes on SB005. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend. Is there a Carolina Diaz? You can state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Lady Carolina Diaz. I am DOJ Accredited Representative and Legal Services Manager at Companeros. Since 2025, our offices have documented 43 detentions in our region. 0% of these were conducted with a judicial warrant. The case of Fernando Jaramillo and his children is a hunting example of government overreach. They were affirmative asylum seekers. When they were detained in Durango, I went there personally as their legal representative. I presented the agents with their complete asylum filings and legal proofs. I told them this was an identity. the error. Despite the evidence, I refused to release them. Later, an immigration agent corroborated in court that Fernando's detention was, in fact, a case of mistaken identity. They knew it was a mistake, yet they chose to violate the Fourth Amendment, rights through an unreasonable and prolonged seizure. By ignoring their pending legal process, they also violate their 5th and 14th Amendment rights to do process. For 36 hours, the family was kept in a tiny cell without sunlight. When Fernando begged for food for his kids, an agent told him, Your children don't matter. This is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unisonal punishment. A 12-year-old girl was forced to use the toilet in front of her father and brother, destroying her dignity. What's most devastating is Hannah reported that an officer touched her private parts. I heard her voice, broken and shaking, saying, Mommy, I told the officer to stop. When Fernando tried to protect his daughter from this abuse, he was beating. These are not just mistakes. They are constitutional crises happening on Colorado soil. We must hold agents to minimum standards of human decency. For Hannah, for Kevin, for Fernando, and for the integrity of our state, I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Members, we have questions for this panel. Seeing none, thank you, panel. We will now call Yvonne Maena Don Fritz Giselle Gordia Panera Vanessa Martinez Ben DiNardo Selena Lopez and Naomi Andre. If we can start from my right, your left, state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you. Afternoon. Thank you, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Yvonne Mina, and I work with Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning, a non-profit that since 1979 has fostered intercultural community through learning, language access, and advocacy. The Spring Institute community includes staff, partners, and participants from a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Many are first or second generation immigrants, members of communities that have been threatened, intimidated, dehumanized by recent federal rhetoric and action. Today, Spring Institute asks for your yes vote on Senate Bill 26005. In this building and in this state we believe in a fair and just application of the law We believe in the rights outlined in the United States Constitution rights entitled to every person living in this country Senate Bill 26005 reflects and upholds these beliefs. When any Coloradan experiences violations to their constitutional rights, we all lose. When people fear that engaging with authorities could lead to a violation of their rights, they are less likely to engage with community, they're less likely to report crimes, and they're less likely to seek help when they need it. This isolation serves no one and actually jeopardizes public safety. By creating a civil cause of action, this bill makes clear that federal immigration officers do not operate above the law, that they have neither the permission nor the authority to violate individuals' constitutional rights. We commend the bill sponsors and fellow advocates who have expressed their undying support and urge yes vote on this bill. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. If you can state your name, who you represent, you will have two minutes. On the microphone. Sorry. Thank you, chair and members of the committee. And I want to shout out to everyone who showed up today. This is collective power and the people have spoken. Estamos aquí as the saying goes. My name is Cacel Gardea. I'm a fellow with Mi Familia Vota and I was previously an intern at Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. Through these roles, I saw firsthand the injustices immigrants face while being detained. These experiences were not only professional, but also deeply personal. As a child of immigrant parents, I understand what is at stake in this current moment. SB 2605 is critical in expanding protections and ensuring meaningful avenues for readdress for immigrant communities across our state. At a time when the Department of Homeland Security operates with vast resources and expansive authority, immigrant communities are facing escalated harm in their own neighborhoods. These harms are not hypothetical. Families are being separated, communities are living in fear, and people are suffering. By supporting this legislation, we can illuminate compassion and human dignity in our state. Colorado has both the authority and the responsibility to regulate conduct within its own borders and to safeguard the rights of those who live here. I've heard stories of community members telling me about their loved ones being unlawfully detained by ICE. These incidents raise serious concerns about violations of fundamental constitutional rights. When ICE conducts arrests that result in rights being abused, it produces distrust of law enforcement and other public institutions. This bill reinforces community trust and public safety. Immigrants are not strangers to us. They are your neighbors, your friends, and your colleagues. I believe that justice for immigrants is justice for all. In my last moments, urging you to vote yes on this bill. When everything is said and done, will you look back at your vote and think to yourself, did I meet the moment? Did I do the best I could to protect my community, to uplift my community? This legislation is about enforcing justice through repair, accountability, and the rebuilding of relationships with a clear emphasis on restoring power to those who have been harmed. Again, I urge you to vote in favor of SB 2605. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. if you can state your name who you represent you also have two minutes thank you my name is vanessa martinez i'm here on behalf of the colorado organization for latin opportunity and reproductive rights or colord we are here in strong support of senate bill five when civil immigration enforcement violates constitutional rights coloradans deserve a clear path to justice The individual experiences of abuse that you heard today are not isolated incidents Results from our 2025 nonpartisan poll of 1,700 Latinos across the state make clear that abuse enforcement tactics are happening across Colorado. Tactics that create fear and confusion in everyday life, impacting whether someone will seek medical care, take their child to school, or report a crime. Senate Bill 5 interrupts this cycle by making clear that constitutional violations will not be ignored or excused. When the same poll asked in July last year, much earlier than some of the most visible abuse by federal agents, Latinos in Colorado say they believe immigration enforcement is targeting people who look like immigrants, including community members who are U.S. citizens. Colorado Latinos also believe all law enforcement should treat everyone with dignity. Senate Bill 5 reinforces that expectation. It creates a state court remedy when federal constitutional rights are violated during civil immigration enforcement, and it aligns with longstanding legal precedent recognizing a state's authority to provide remedies for constitutional harm. When certain community members are unjustly targeted and their civil rights are violated, it undermines not only individual rights, but the health, safety, and well-being of all of us. I urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 5. Thank you. Thank you. And if you can, state your name, who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to advocate for Colorado's children and youth. My name is Dawn Fritz, and I'm Colorado PTA's Director of Legislative Engagement. PTA is our nation's oldest and largest child advocacy association. Our mission is to make every child's potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children. Colorado PTA supports Senate Bill 5. PTA recognizes the importance of immigrants in the history of the United States and the resulting blend of cultures enriches our nation. PTA also believes that all children, regardless of their immigration status, have the right of access to quality public education, adequate food and shelter, and basic health care services. Children are uniquely vulnerable to the consequences of unconstitutional immigration enforcement, especially when injury occurs. When immigration actions violate constitutional protections, the harm does not only impact adults. Children experience the fallout immediately and too often permanently. You've heard the accounts of horror and violation today. Family separation, sudden detention of caregivers, or violent enforcement actions create toxic stress for children. The trauma disrupts brain development, undermines physical and mental health, and interferes with learning, emotional regulation, and long-term stability. Even the fear of unconstitutional enforcement can keep children from school, health care, and other essential services they need to thrive. Unconstitutional immigration enforcement harms all children and families. With the withdrawal of federal guidance related to sensitive places, we have seen the reports of immigration enforcement near schools, health care facilities, and courts. This creates the potential for our children to be subject or witness violent unconstitutional enforcement in places where they should feel safest. Colorado PTA supports Senate Bill 5 because we believe that it is in the interest of all Coloradans to ensure that every child, including children and immigrant and mixed status families, have the opportunity to reach their full potential. This bill helps discourage unconstitutional immigration enforcement that is harmful to Colorado's children, youth, and their families. Thank you for your time and consideration of PTA's position. Thank you. Do we have a Selena Lopez Mr Chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today My name is Selena Lopez. I'm representing myself, and I'm here to support Senate Bill 005. For almost a month at the beginning of this year, I would call my dad every day. My dad is Puerto Rican, and he lives about an hour away from the Twin Cities in Minnesota. I would call him every day during Operation Metro Surge and make sure him and my family were okay. He limited his time going outside and tried to stay in his home as much as possible. And when he was outside of his home, he was hyper aware of his surroundings. The hypervigilance, the stress was felt by me, my family, my partner, my friends, really everyone around us. We lived in this dual state. A dual state describes the existence of a normal state and a prerogative state. the dual existence of normal everyday functioning such as going to work, doing a job, making dinner, and then this prerogative state of such as seeing violent arrests by armed fast men. It's watching a man being executed right across the street where he used to get donuts as a college student. Before I learned of this term dual state, I truly felt like I was going insane. How can everyone just sit here and do nothing to protect ourselves and their neighbors? Why is there no recourse available for people whose rights have been violated by those given guns and told they can do anything in the name of immigration enforcement? It's demoralizing to watch our federal government harm people, create media campaigns against them, and put a nearly endless amount of money and resources to back this unjust agenda. What resources can everyday people have to combat this? today i ask you to do something about this injustice i ask you to pass this bill to hold violent harmful people accountable for their actions it's important for everyday coloradans to see that there is a course of action to take when our rights have been violated by anyone including a federal agent thank you so much thank you do we have a ben denardo yes mr denardo you can state your name who you represent you have two minutes. Thank you. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ben DiNardo and I'm here representing myself. I'm here in support of Senate Bill 005 and I thank the sponsors for standing up and doing what we can as Coloradans to fight back against executive overreach. Our state, the state where I was born and grew up, was founded 100 years after our nation itself was founded, 100 years after the promise of liberty and justice for all was made. However, 250 years later, that promise rings hollow. There is often liberty and justice in this country if you look like me, but not so much for others in our society. While this didn't start with our current administration in Washington, under their leadership, the blatant attacks on individuals in our country, regardless of immigration status, should make us all furious. This legalized profiling has left ordinary Colorado residents scared to go to work or leave their homes for fear of being sent to a 21st century concentration camp paid for by our tax dollars. And due to the leviathan that our federal government is, there is nothing that individuals can do to fight it other than what I am doing today, speaking with my elected representatives and demanding that they do what is in their power to fight back. This bill is a step we can make today to rein in this federal overreach. this bill creates a statutory cause of action for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by federal law enforcement so they can finally get the justice they are owed. If this bill passes, the cover of immigration enforcement will no longer be sufficient to shield federal officers from all legal penalties. History will remember what's done here today, even if not explicitly. Because while we may not remember the specific laws passed by the Reichstag in the 1930s, we all know their impacts. So now is your chance to change the course of history and decide how you want to be remembered by future generations. For the reasons I outlined, as well as those discussed by the other proponents of this bill, I urge a yes vote for SB 005. Thank you for your time. Thanks, sir. I'm going to have Naomi Andre. State your name and who you represent, ma'am. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Naomi Andre. I am here representing myself and I am here in support of Senate Bill 26005. I think that it is common sense to support this bill. I think that I have to echo what other people have said earlier, that rights require protection and remediation in order to be meaningful at all. I think that this bill is especially important today in this day and age because of the way that we have heard earlier, the way that ICE has treated the people that they have detained and deported. There have been reports. There was a recent report from the Associated Press describing the background checks of some ICE agents. And from that report, it is clear that the standards of these background checks are either extremely low or non-existent. This, in conjunction with descriptions of a lack of training or a training that does not fully cover what ICE agents should know, show that ICE as an agency cannot be trusted. In order for Coloradans to continue to have trust in the government, the trust that ICE has eroded with our federal government must be covered by the Colorado state government. I believe that that is what this bill sets out to do. And I believe that it is very important for it to be passed now so that as many people as possible can see the justice that they deserve. I urge a yes vote on this bill. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, members. Do we have any questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you very much, panel. All right. Do I have a Jeannie Rush? Do I have a Shelly Witten Vragle? Oh, good. Marina Cruz? Elsa Alcala. Dr Thomas Acker Augusto Lattori Kristen Switzer What about Selena Lopez? Selena Lopez? Nope. Already cold. Sorry. Is there a Sue Ramirez? And a Michael Neal? Yeah. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify? Who has not been called either for or against? Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, if you can state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes. I don't need two minutes. A lot of things have been said. My name is Shelley Wittefrungel. I am an attorney and had 25 years representing immigration cases, and another 25 years as a Catholic nun. I am here on my own to say what I know to be true. Thank you for the opportunity to support this bill. I'm adding only one thing to what has been said before. The children that are in these homes when ICE agents come in are the children, most of them are United States citizens. And the trauma that they are experiencing in that event is something that will carry with them the rest of their life. those are the United States citizens who will become adolescents and then become our neighbors and start their own families. I think we need to take into account the damage that we are doing to those children in the way that ICE is carrying on. The bill is an opportunity to set a boundary for the ICE agents. It's an opportunity to stop what's going on. I urge the passage of the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Shelley. Do I have a genie rush? Right here. How you doing? State your name, who you represent. You've got two minutes. Jeannie Rush, a legal German immigrant. Something strange in the neighborhood Who are you going to call Ghost busters What about the rights of the citizens Where is the justice for the killed raped young people nationwide by those here illegally Dakara Thompson, Lakin Riley, Rachel Morin, Kayla Hamilton-Jocelyn Hungaray, Larisha Shirell Thompson, Jamie L. Shaw, young, murdered, raped, discarded. George Campos, Colorado, illegal man, raped 11-year-old, convicted, but out on bail waiting for sentence. Not even Tina Peters gets that respect. If a person is not legal citizen, they don't enjoy constitutional rights. Basic human rights, yes, but nothing else. 14.8 million people in the United States to 28 million people are here by the White House. Supposedly more. These are serious national security issues, not a cause to celebrate, And certainly not a cause to abet and aid the very people who often cause harm, rape, death, robbery, drugs, chaos, mayhem in our communities. Where are our rights that are here legally? And then you want to villainize ICE and the law enforcement. This bill stinks to high heaven. The estimates of rapes from 2020 to 2025 is 500,000 to 1.9 million a year. And at least a third of those are children, 12 or younger even sometimes. This kind of stuff, this violence coming from people who aren't here legally is the reason there's such a panic. And yes, a person should be treated with dignity. But if you're here illegally, you just already broke the law. You didn't come here legally. And even the legislature can't put lipstick on that pig. And I'm not calling people pigs. I'm saying the bill doesn't represent the truth. I am so awfully horribly upset that this is happening. Our children are being harmed, and I don't want any children harmed. So stop letting millions of people in here to destroy our nation and our sovereignty, our very humanity. Quit calling us the bad guys, all the nonprofits and commies that funded all the witnesses. Stop funding them. Stop funding the destruction of America. I have tons of friends of all races and color and persuasions, and I'm sick of this being called bad guys. We're not bad guys. Thank you, Ms. Rush. Did you want to finish your thought? Well, I just wanted you to know I don't think this is the right bill and the right way. There is a way to do this in respect. Thank you, Ms. Rush. Thank you, Ms. Rush. Do I have a Christine Switzer or Christy Switzer? Sorry. Yes, I'm fine. State your name, who you represent. You have two minutes. Thank you for your time and for hearing these testimonies today. My name is Kristen Switzer. I'm a resident of Fort Collins. I'm representing myself today. I'm testifying in support of SB 2605. I think this bill is so important. We're seeing ICE agents violating civil rights every single day across the country. everyone who is on U.S. soil, who is physically on U.S. soil, is protected by the Constitution and has constitutional rights. ICE should not have immunity to violate the law. That is common sense, I feel. They should be held accountable for their crimes, and this bill would help give Coloradoans some protection against these masked agents who are invading our communities. The federal administration won't hold ICE accountable So when the federal government won keep us safe We need to keep ourselves safe through local and state legislation Not holding ICE accountable sends a message that it okay to trample on our Constitution and on human rights and that's not what the United States should stand for. This is a matter of protecting our humanity, regardless of political party, race, and immigration status. Please vote yes on SB 2605. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a Michael Neal? You do. Thank you. State your name, sir. You have two minutes. My name is Michael Neal. I am testifying on behalf of myself, but also as a member leader for Colorado People's Alliance. There's probably not much that's been said that I wouldn't that I can add to, except for the fact that I don't know if we've gone through the consequences of what happens when we don't pass. this bill. And so first of all, I rise in strong support of SB 26005. And I do so not just because it's the right thing to do in terms of a humanitarian and civil rights aspect, but because we now will be seeing, and I think we're already seeing, folks not going to doctorate appointments, not going to school, not even going to their scheduled check-ins if they are legally here, but still have to go in for check-ins for their visas and the like. Folks are going to be hiding out, avoiding any possibility of community interaction where they could be attacked and where they could be either mentally or physically abused. And giving them the tool of a right of action in Colorado State Court is not probably the end-all and be-all of what we can do, but it is a huge step forward to step in where the federal government is not and to rebalance the scales and make sure that we actually do have a functioning legal system where people will go to divorce proceedings. People will go to their doctor. People will go to meet with their parole officer. People will go to school. All of those things we obviously want to have a functioning society. But people won't do that if they're under constant threat of fear and aggression by ICE agents. I am sorry that some amendments were drawn that made this bill a bit more watered down and not focused directly on ICE agents. But nonetheless, I think it's a terribly important foundation that we need to maintain. And so despite some of the amendments, I ask for a very, very strong I vote on 26.05. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Acker, Thomas Acker, you have two minutes. State your name, who you represent. Yeah, my name is Thomas Acker. I wish to thank the chair and the committee for hearing my testimony. I am a former member of the Colorado Human Trafficking Council where I served for eight years. What we have found most conducive to the prevalence of human trafficking is people feeling marginalized and choosing to live in the shadows. The federal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration has relegated members of our community to a sense of powerlessness, which in turn often provokes abuses by bad players. As we saw in Minnesota, Border Patrol and ICE use tactics which infringe on people's constitutional rights, both those of protesters and confirmers, as well as the victims that we have seen detained while not having committed any criminal act. SB 25276 has gone far in ensuring protections for our immigrant neighbors, but agents frequently ignore such protections. An SB 005 in place will give additional teeth to Colorado law to dissuade bad actors from abusing our immigrant neighbors. We all know that crossing a nation's border is a civil offense, not a felony. So the vast majority of those being detained are innocent of criminal activities. Member volunteers of CORN are putting themselves in harm's way should the federal agent decide to infringe upon the volunteers' rights. Those courageous neighbors need to be protected in the event that they are victimized. SB005 promotes Colorado legal authority to protect the rights of not only those volunteers, but also those of victims unjustly detained by federal agents. The provision in Section 2.2 that mandates that the attorney's fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs is essential to ensure justice prevails through the adequate legal presentation of victims. Please vote in favor of SB 26005. Thank you. Thank you. Members, did we have questions for this panel. Seeing none, thank you very much. Sponsors. That is the end of testimony. Do we have sponsors? Thank you. Thank you. Take five minutes of recess. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. witness testimony is closed. Do you have any amendments? No amendments, Mr. Chair. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing no amendments, the amendment phase is closed. Did you want to wrap up or do you want to go back into recess? I can wrap up and then we can go to recess so that my co-prime can wrap up as well. Please wrap up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, he's got to do good. This bill has come at an incredibly important time in this moment in history where we have exposed that there is a gaping hole in our system. federal law supersedes state law when federal authority is exercised in pursuance of the constitution but on unconstitutional acts are the definition of acts not taken in pursuance of the constitution and therefore i fail to see a compelling reason why we wouldn't seek to hold every public official including federal officials accountable for constitutional violation our system was built with far more faith than we have realized in the enduring integrity of the federal government but we have to treat the federal government with the same degree of accountability that we have reserved for state and local actors i think my co-prime will go through all the reasons why this will be we believe this would be upheld if it faces a challenge. I'm happy to go through some of that as well as we wait, or we can go to a recess. All right. We'll have my version of it, and then my co-prime can go through more of the precedent and the history. Courts have found that a law discriminates against the federal government when it treats the federal government differently than similarly situated constituents of the state. It's not enough that a law just touches on something in the federal sphere. That is something that the states do have authority to do. Rather, it is about the differential treatment of a similarly situated actor that is crucial to find in order to have a discrimination intergovernmental immunity claim What we have done here is created a civil cause of action against any person acting under the color of law that deprives somebody of federal constitutional rights in the course of immigration enforcement. That action can be against anyone. It can be against a federal, state, or local actor. It is treating all similarly situated persons the same. Therefore, nothing in this bill discriminates against the federal government, but sets the same standard that we expect of our peace officers and of our state and local actors. Civil immigration enforcement is traditionally in the purview of the federal government. We have heard that as an argument that this bill is only targeted towards those actors. However, state and local actors may also assist the federal government in carrying out immigration enforcement. And therefore, the provisions in this bill and the accountability in this bill applies equally to all actors. And I am going to let my co-prime go through more of the case laws. as I believe he has a deep dive prepared for us. I will just close here by saying we have heard the testimony repeatedly across a number of bills in this committee about what is happening outside of this building. It is absolutely a constitutional crisis. And for those of us who tout upholding the Constitution and speak about how it applies to everybody because it does. It applies to everybody in this country. We have to stand by that word and say that the law applies equally to everyone, even if they are a federal actor. With that, I am going to urge an aye vote, and I'm going to ask us to wait for my co-prime. We will be in a brief recess. Don't. Recess is over. I will give the co-sponsor a minute. Mr. Chair. Thank you. I apologize for being late. Coming back, I was listening to testimony. Okay. So, as I did in my opening remarks, I want to address the litigation risk here. So, I think it helps to state the controlling rule in these types of cases. specifically when it comes to intergovernmental immunity. In United States v. Washington, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits state laws that either regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the federal government or those with whom it deals. That is two prongs, direct regulation or discrimination. A state law that does neither of these things does not offend that doctrine. And Senate Bill 5 does neither. It does not command a federal agency or officer to do or refrain from doing anything. It is about protecting somebody from having their constitutional rights violated. It creates a neutral cause of action that is enforced by private parties available to anyone whose rights under the United States Constitution are violated. Again, by any person, federal, state, local, private contractor, cross-deputized, participating in civil immigration enforcement, the object of the statute is unconstitutional conduct, not federal identity. We know this bill will be challenged in court. There's no question about that. The Trump administration has been aggressive about taking on states that are standing up to protect the constitutional rights of people who live there in this context. But the Constitution tells every person in the state that the government cannot break into your home without a warrant. It cannot seize you because of the color of your skin or the language you speak. It cannot use excessive force or shoot you in the street. Again, I want to talk about the intergovernmental immunity piece. That doctor prohibits states from discriminating against the federal government or directly regulating its operations. This bill does neither. A state law does not unconstitutionally regulate the federal government by preventing it from doing something it has no authority to do in the first place, violating somebody's constitutional rights. I want to thank everybody who came out to testify for this bill to stand up in this moment. I do believe that this is our generational moment. And it's fitting that as this law has been developed, courts and the United States Congress have explicitly called on state legislatures to act here. There have been court rulings specifically in the context of the Westfall Act, the federal torts regulations, that there is an express constitutional tort carve out. We know Bivens has been narrowed, but the Supreme Court has openly invited legislators to fill the void and protect people where their constitutional rights are being violated. 28 people have died in ICE custody since October in just six months. A measles outbreak is tearing through a detention facility in Texas. We heard horrific stories about child abuse today, people who had witnessed it, child sex abuse in these detention centers. We have the ability to say you are not above the law here in the state of Colorado, and I'm proud to urge you to yes vote on Senate Bill 5. A proper motion would be to appropriations. I move Senate Bill 5 to the Appropriations Committee with favorable recommendation. Second. That is a proper motion and a proper second by Representative Zocchi. Members, do we have any closing?
Representative Espinoza Thank you Mr Chair Thank you, sponsors. And I want to take a moment to thank the witnesses that came out today. Your stories and the reasons that we must act are critical to our determinations of how and what we do at this time. As some people have noted, I have very high levels of scrutiny on immigration bills. And part of that is because I believe that we are limited in the levels of things that we can do in the state by virtue of the federal preemption in immigration matters. However, one of the things I want to share today is that since 2017, I've been a member of the roundtable of former immigration judges. and our highest priority and purpose for existence is that we came together to ensure that due process existed in our immigration system. My former colleagues and I continue to write amicus briefs across this country for the horrors, against the horrors that this administration is engaging in. We started at the beginning of his last term and we've been continuing, even through the Biden administration, with times when we see due process being violated. I see SB 5 as a step towards addressing that at a state level. However, I am concerned whether this is the right approach, but I'm excited to hear that my colleagues and I will continue to work on how to make this approach the most successfully challengeable, successfully protected against challenges in order to ensure that we can provide real results and a situation of resolution. Too many times in this session I've been told, you must vote for immigration bills because the public wants it. I can't do that if the bills aren't solid, if the bills are going to create problems. That is not the case today as we move forward with trying to find a resolution to this matter. The issue is one that warrants continued discussion and continued support from all of our members to address the circumstances that are unacceptable. Although our hands may be tied in many ways because of federal preemption, our communities do need protection, and we must find a way to provide that to them. This is one avenue which we can take action. and even though I may not get there all the way if this isn't the only vehicle, we knew we have other vehicles, and we will continue to work together to make this the strongest and best vehicle possible. So I wanted to put on the record that I appreciate everything the sponsors have done to this point, the work that we are engaging in, the evaluation that we're doing to ensure that we have the strongest and best law, and I will be a strong supporter today of SB 5.
Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have some small comments. I just wanted to repeat some of the statements that I heard from witnesses, considering we had such a bare panel up here. And I don't want that to be any form of disrespect to the witnesses, that we didn't have a full panel during your testimony. There were two particular comments. While all of the witnesses were compelling to me, with the exception of one, there were two very particular comments that really stood out to me. The first one was, if the Constitution means nothing, then this country means nothing. If the Constitution means nothing meaning that it doesn matter if our rights are violated then this country means nothing That statement was so incredibly profound that any opposition to any remedy to make sure that our Constitution means something demonstrates a lack of support to our Constitution. the second comment that really stuck out at me was the question that we should all consider did i meet the moment what is the moment right now the moment right now is to respond to community needs if community is asking us to step up and do something for the protection of our neighbors and ourselves. Why would we not? I am so proud to be able to say, and when I get old and grumpy and old and still, you know, still look young, maybe, that I did meet the moment. and I met the moment because I'm voting yes on this and the many other policies that we have brought to protect our neighbors and ourselves I think something that has fallen short in this conversation is the fact that this is not just a protection for the immigrant community although that is so important it is also protection for every individual who is mistreated by immigrant law enforcement. Immigration law enforcement, excuse me. Not only are immigrants being attacked, and not only is the idea of a quote-unquote undocumented immigrant having their rights violated, when one person's rights are violated, everyone's rights are violated. why would we not want to uphold the constitution voting yes on this does not mean that you are expanding rights for a population that you might find less desirable voting yes on this means that you believe in the constitution and therefore you believe in the united states I'm proud to say that I will meet the moment today and I will be voting yes
AML Bacon I know people can't see me behind this pillar and I'm so grateful for my colleagues from Adams County because I literally texted her I'm like please do not say the same thing I'm going to say and she did so I will differ a little bit And I, you know, to those of you who saw me coming in and out, I did have my headphones in, but I'll add to what my colleague just shared, because there was also a contrasting statement. I can't help but be struck by our Constitution and what it is that it is supposed to do, what its purpose is, and who it protects. It's been one of those days in regards to that. And so to see a witness come into the room and say the only thing I have to protect me is this document If all of us didn take pause even however you land politically to understand the impact of that statement, I think then we have to all evaluate what the document means. I heard another witness say that the rights should be afforded to citizens and not the people who aren't citizens. You know, I often say that what keeps this country together is a document in two oceans. And what that means is we have to believe in that document. And despite all the ups and downs that I've gone through, my community, my ancestors have gone through, it's also been that document to get us through. Because once upon a time, my ancestors weren't considered citizens. In fact, they were considered property. And when we looked at the document, what eventually turned the tides, and what is true about this document is that it is the law of the land regardless of your status. and that has been a long-held constitutional privilege the notion that people believe it doesn't apply to certain people when they are in between these two oceans it's just patently false and that kind of concerns me because to believe in the constitution you have to believe in it all the time if you know the constitution the constitution is actually made to constrain the government to protect the rights of people. And sometimes I get struck about who are the people that advocate against laws like this. Because when we think about what law enforcement and who law enforcement is, at the end of the day, they are the government. They are the people that the Constitution applies to to constrain its power against the people and the land to which the document governs. 1983 is one of my favorite laws. And if anybody follows civil rights law, this is the seminal law that has brought into effect, has really breathed life into the Constitution. And it basically says, if you do not follow the basic tenets of, quite frankly, anti-discrimination or violation of these laws, then you can hold the government accountable. And so I think this bill just has one seminal paragraph that is incredibly important, and it's at the beginning. And it just talks about that people should be able to hold a person who has their rights that are guaranteed by the United States Constitution, violated by another person. if we do not have an accountability framework which is the literal very purpose of the constitution then i too agree and so to the gentleman who was caring or if that's the case the document that said all i have to protect me if i think i'll probably take that to my grave that was a great acknowledgement And so if there are questions on this, at the end of the day what this bill says is that people have a cause of action if there is a violation of the Constitution. And just because you are law enforcement, as I said earlier, doesn't mean you get to act without impunity. Again, the whole document is to limit. government. They cannot just enter your home. We have an amendment for that. They cannot say that you are guilty before innocent. We have an amendment for that. They cannot falsely imprison you. We have an amendment for that. And now we will have the statute. States should be able to also enforce, and again, these are constitutional violations. And so if there is no room in court for that, then I'm not sure what our purpose of government is under our documents and under our three branches of government. And so thank you all, and thank you to sponsors for bringing this. And again, despite politics, if you believe in the Constitution, you believe in it all the time. So thank you, and I look forward to voting for this bill.
Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, sponsors. I will say you've definitely hit on a very interesting subject. I specifically like the layout of the history of how we got here. And I do think that's important because in terms of how we developed, for example, the notion of qualified immunity is something that is a very American legal concept that did emerge over time. That was not the way the founders had laid out the original basis for enforcement of laws within our country. As is laid out within the legislative declaration some of the earlier American case law even reflect that because there given the ability for direct cause of action against a government actor who does violate persons of civil liberties for example that outside of the scope or authorization that entrusted to them That being said, we have a remedy, and that would be a Section 1983 claim. I would be more inclined to stick with what we already have in existing law as a means of a remedy. The other thing that has given us pause for concern was the statement that was made by one of the sponsors in your opening, which was, this is likely to bring immediate constitutional challenge as there's questions, and there's questions about how this will be interpreted. And I cannot, with good faith, support a bill that has such constitutional questions as to even have that be mentioned within the opening remarks by one of the sponsors. And that's something that I know every law that we pass or bill that we pass here is presumed constitutional. That's a legislative doctrine that has stood the test of time. That being said, we also have a duty to uphold our oath and the Constitution of our state and of our nation. And when something does give us pause to where we're not sure, maybe we should back off just a little bit and not go in that direction. So with that, I'll be a respectful no. Thank you.
First of all I want to begin by thanking both the sponsors I believe when you set out this year, work regarding community engagement and listening to the community makes me want to be a proud yes. I represent one of the most culturally diverse districts in the state, period. what your witnesses were speaking to my constituents live on a daily basis. When we were talking about what this bill reminds us of is that violating the federal constitution rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be anything other but necessary and proper. It's not an abstract principle for my people in the city of Aurora. It's the difference between safety and trauma, dignity and humiliation. Remember, I chose Aurora to raise my family. I chose Aurora because of the exact reason that these protections have to be in place. I chose Aurora because of the different cultures and the different diversity. I chose Aurora. And then to watch my city be terrorized and denigrated by both outside politicians and inside politicians it not just scary it hurtful You know I used to be a member of the Aurora School Board And I would tell people all the time if you are confused if you are confused about how we are getting along go watch a playground of a bunch of little kids. They don't care. They don't care. But continually, continually, we and my constituents are being attacked by the color of their skin, by the jobs that they have, by the cars that they drive, and they have no recourse. I am truly thankful and proud of you two for bringing this. I'm thankful and proud that I get to take this back to my citizens and to my constituents. I'm going to be, like I said, a very proud yes, and I want to thank both of you. Ms. Shipley called the roll. Representatives Bacon.
Yes.
Caldwell.
No.
Clifford.
Yes.
Espinosa.
Yes.
Flannell.
No.
Garcia.
Yes.
Elty.
No.
Soper.
No.
Zokai.
Yes.
Mabry.
Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes. On a 7-4 vote, you have passed. You're on to approves. That is the end of this committee. Adjourned. 7-4. Thank you.