April 1, 2026 · 1,128 words · 7 speakers · 25 segments
All right, I will call to order the review and comment hearing for Proposed Initiative 2526, Number 286, concerning the right to access public proceedings and records. I will have everybody in the room go around and introduce themselves.
My name is Julia Jackson with Legislative Council Staff.
Rebecca Byetti with the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
John Caldera, Proponent.
Shane Madsen, Counsel for Proponents.
Beth Hendricks, proponent. Thanks so much.
Section 140.105.1, Colorado Revised Statutes, requires the directors of the legislative council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to, quote, review and comment on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution. We hereby submit our comments and questions to you regarding the appended proposed initiative, which is before you in this memo. The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Directors of Legislative Council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments and questions intended to aid designated representatives and the proponents they represent in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intended purposes, and we hope that the comments and questions in this memorandum provide a basis for discussion and understanding of the proposals. The proposal, discussion between designated representatives or their legal representatives and employees of the Legislative Council staff in the Office of Legislative Legal Services is encouraged during review and comment meetings, but comments or discussion from anyone else is not permitted. An earlier version of this proposed initiative, number 286, was proposed initiative 2526, number 261, submitted by the same designated representatives and the subject of a memorandum dated March 13, 2026 and discussed at a public meeting on March 16, 2026. The comments and questions we'll discuss today do not include comments and questions that were addressed in the earlier memorandum or the earlier meeting except as necessary to fully understand the issues raised by the revised proposed initiative Prior comments and questions that are not restated in this memorandum continue to be relevant and
are considered part of this memorandum and this hearing. So just to clarify, by that last sentence,
you mean that you're incorporating by reference the prior proceeding? Yes. And now I'll read the purposes. The major purposes of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution appear to be to, one, establish a fundamental constitutional right for all persons to know the affairs of all levels of state and local government, which guarantees the right to access and examine public records and public proceedings and to observe the meetings, deliberations, discussions, and presentations of all public bodies of state and local government. 2. Specify that this fundamental right applies to all public affairs of government and does not apply only when the demand of individual privacy or another highly compelling state interest clearly outweighs this fundamental right. 3. Require any government, office, official, officer, employee, or public body asserting an exemption to the public access requirements of the proposed initiative to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the government affairs at issue are exempt 4. Impose a civil penalty of at least $1,000 on any state or local government for each instance in which they knowingly violate the provisions of the proposed initiative Five, prohibit any state or local government from enacting legislation to limit or restrict the provisions of the proposed initiative. And six, preempt any ordinance, rule, regulation, charter, or statute that conflicts or is inconsistent with the provisions of the proposed initiative. Do these purposes, as stated, align with the intent of the proposed initiative?
Not to be unduly anal I did want to make sure that when you particularly with respect to paragraph one the purposes of the amendment should include the answer that we will soon give as to the single subject of the measure So we'd like that revised to include that statement. And then also with respect to paragraph two, this seems to indicate there's only one situation in which information can be withheld or the affairs of government to be protected. That's not the case. section 3 the clear and convincing it's roughly okay section 4 it's $1,000 per occurrence you might want to make that clear and then I think I've said enough for now but I didn't want to be unduly restricted
good alright
the substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions. Question one, article five, section one, 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative? This measure creates a new constitutional right of access to the affairs of government. Question two, because the declaration is found below the enacting clause and is written in small capital letters, the declaration in subsection one of the proposed initiative would be included in the new Section 33 of the Colorado Constitution.
Is this your intent? Yes, it is.
Question 3. Subsection 8 of the proposed initiative establishes the penalty for a knowing infringement of the fundamental right established by the proposed initiative. The following questions relate to subsection 8. A. Subsection 8 provides that the sanction applies to any state or local government. Is the intent of this language that individual governmental officers or employees are not liable for violations of this fundamental right, either in their personal or professional capacities?
As to the professional capacity that will be up to any enforcing court but the intent of the proponents in removing the prior language dealing with individual actors is to make only the entity the governmental entity subject to the knowing
violation. B, is this subsection 8 intended as a waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity? That's up to the courts for the future legislation. C, if an individual wanted to file suit alleging a violation of their constitutional right, who would be the correct party against whom to file the action?
I think that can't be answered now. It's up to the courts and the legislature in the future.
It's whoever is holding the document or conducting the hearing.
So we have sub-questions here. Who would this be at the local level and who would this be at the state level?
And I'm assuming your answer is correct.
Okay.
That concludes our substantive comments and questions. there's a few more technical comments that we don't need to go over unless you have
questions about them we do not need to go over thank you very much
all right anything else for the record I think we have a record succinct and efficient proceeding all right perfect then we will adjourn the thank you
Thank you. Thank you.