House Judiciary [May 08, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

The committee will come to order. Ms. Shipley, please call the roll.

Here. Here. Carter. Mr. Chair. Here.

We have one more, we have one more, Bill.

Thank you.

Majority Leader Duren. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. And I just want to say before I even start, I want to thank AML Bacon. She has worked really diligently on this bill for such a long time and put in a lot of work and effort, and I am just honored to be a very, very small part of this policy. Thank you. So today we're not debating future technology. We're debating something that is already here and already shaping people's lives. Artificial intelligence is being used in more places than most people realize. It can show up when someone applies for housing, looks for a job, seeks health care, applies for credit, buys insurance, or tries to access public services. And I want to be clear, too. You do not have to be a technology expert like myself to understand, which I'm not, to understand the stakes. When a tool helps make a decision about whether someone gets a home, a job, a loan, or care, that decision has real consequences. It can open a door or it can close one. It can create opportunity or it can deepen existing inequities. AI is here to stay. The question before us is not whether this technology will continue to grow. It will. The question is whether Colorado will put basic guardrails in place so that growth happens with transparency accountability and fairness Colorado has already taken a leadership role in this space With our earlier work we became one of the first states in the nation to take comprehensive approach to artificial intelligence and consequential decisions. And we did not do that work alone. We brought together a broad group of stakeholders, consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, industry leaders, small businesses, technologists, and national experts through working groups in ongoing discussions to better understand both the risks and the opportunities. What is before us today reflects that continued collaboration. We have seen what happens when technology moves faster than the rules meant to protect people. This bill is about making sure we do not wait until harm is widespread before acting. This bill does not stop innovation. It simply says that when AI is used in consequential decisions, there should be transparency, fairness, and accountability. And importantly, this bill reflects meaningful progress for all parties involved. For consumers, it ensures people know when AI is being used, gives them the ability to question outcomes, reinforces protections against discrimination in the decisions that matter most. For employers, our businesses, our employees, it provides clearer, more workable expectations. It narrows the scope to truly consequential uses, allows flexibility through reasonable risk management rather than rigid mandates. For developers, it avoids overly prescriptive design requirements and instead focuses on real-world outcomes, allowing continued innovation while still encouraging responsible development. No one is fully satisfied with this bill, and that is often the mark of a true compromised policy. It reflects months of engagement, negotiations, and good faith effort to balance innovation with protection, flexibility, and accountability. People deserve to know when AI is being used. They deserve a chance to correct inaccurate information. They deserve meaningful human review, and they deserve accountability when these systems cause harm or lead to discrimination. Colorado can embrace innovation and protect people in the same time. In fact, we have a responsibility to do so. Colorado is a national growing ground for how far states can go in regulating artificial intelligence and how we can do it thoughtfully. I ask for your support on this bill today, and my co-prime sponsor, Amal Bacon, will walk through more details. I'll kick it over to you. Amal Bacon. Thank you. And so, members, I just want to share with you high-level what's in this bill, and we're happy to take any questions. Also, we have witnesses who participated in the task force that helped create this bill, or quite frankly, did create this bill. For many of you, you have probably been following. At this point, I'm looking to be able to write my book. I saw the book. It's too early for... Okay. Too soon. It's too soon. And so ultimately, just to follow the trajectory, when Senate Bill 5 was passed around two years ago, the governor signing it said there might be some issues. From there, there was a task force in the working group to try to figure out how they could make the decisions. We weren't able to bring that bill forward. I'll fast forward to special session. During special session we realized that there was a way to prioritize Figure out how we shape the way that special session groups and I would say a lot of us recognize as well for having along with our colleagues who have experience from AI, and where we landed on during special sessions, rather than have a very robust multi-case set of statutes around sort of build 205, we prioritize critical questions. The critical questions are this. In the event that AI is used to make what we call consequential or big life decisions, we should be responsible if it gets it wrong or if it harms them. He also then said, well, we need to understand how AI is being used to make decisions and which decisions are big enough that we need to have a problem with the ground. And then the last thing that we talked about was how do we support through this new landscape of our sense of should people know when these tools are being used? And so we were not able to get anything from the program in special sessions, but we did realize that we raised very few. And I would argue, anyone who was following it, that it did help us focus. The task force post special session include some of the key questions that they answered are these. And that is where it is going to be. So the first question is how do we actually find artificial intelligence? And is that what we mean this whole conversation? Instead of Bill 205, find artificial intelligence, we no longer have that word and definition. Instead, we use the term ADMP, algorithmic systemically technology. And the reason why we got there is because sometimes things are broader than what we teach AI and sometimes they're lesser. but what's important is how an algorithm is being used, what information as a process, how quickly, to what extent decisions, let alone very important decisions. The second question that we ask around decisions are what kind of decisions should we attach to any sort of responsibility? So we will see two terms. One is conversations, and as we already said, talking about decisions that have major problems on people's lives. Home loan applications, educational decisions, financial decisions, healthcare decisions. And then we said, if this algorithm tool is being used, to what extent is the tool responsible for the decision? And what we came up with is that the use of ADMT materially impacts that contribution. You can't hear me?

Oh, sorry. If you wanted to use the other microphone. Okay. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Is that better? Is that better? Okay.

We wanted people to know when this tool was being used to make very important decisions in their lives. But we also know that there is a relationship between the users of this technology. And the two primary relationships we identified is that of a developer and that of a deployer. And so the developers are the folks who build the underlying technology, the underlying ADMTs. And the deployers are the people who use them. Now, in the world, there are sometimes entities or both. But when we're talking about the whole scheme of disclosures, this is the sequence. First, a developer should disclose to the deployer how their product is properly used or how it's supposed to be used. And then the deployer has the obligation to notify the consumers when it's being used. I think most people are following along. Okay. All right. And so this is important for consumer protection because in real life, you can hold entities accountable if their product harms you or if a person discriminates against you. And what we're finding in this new world that we're in is now a product that has the potential to discriminate. And so if we can hold a person responsible for discriminating, shouldn't we be able to hold a product? But our challenge was that products live in one law and people with discrimination live in another. And so we had to connect the dots. And the way that we connected the dots was first to be sure the developer communicates with the deployer and they have responsibilities around their product. The deployer communicates with the consumer or the user. And then when it comes to things like discrimination, rather than saying the developer is responsible for all the discrimination, what we put in this bill is a liability structure where we apportion the fault and the responsibility between the developer and deployer if the product was used properly. I think for the judiciary, we'll get that. And so the last piece that's important about this bill is thank you to the stakeholders. There are a lot of nuances. This bill does not preempt federal law in certain areas. The bill, for example, respects some key underlying laws such as FERPA and HIPAA. We also addressed the law that already exists around making decisions in credit and providing insurance premiums, for example. And that is a result of who was all at the table. So if there are any particular questions about the bill, you know, I'm happy to walk you through it further. but our witnesses will be able to share what was important to them, how they contributed to the task force and why the bill that we have in front of you is the one that we want to move forward in the state of Colorado. And what I'll end with there is, you know, we do want to recognize the work that happened here. And maybe this is a saying that I don't know if I'm going to embrace, but it might be true. Sometimes the best bills are the bills that not everyone gets everything that they want.

However, it's hard to balance the interests of business and consumers and that's what the whole fight was for all of us for the last two years. But I do want to respect the work that everyone came to the table to do. There isn't maybe all the things that every type of sector wanted, but this is the consensus that has been worked on for much longer than the last couple of months. So whether it is developers, deployers, the big ones, the little ones, labor, consumer protection groups or groups that work on anti-discrimination, I do hope that we can finally get to a place where we have something that we can lean on here in the state of Colorado that we can put into law. Let's see that it works. We have provisions in here to be sure we can review it to make some tweaks and adjustments as we go. but at the end of the day what we're doing here in this state is actually trailblazing and i think as a state we should be proud that we endeavored because i do think it would take a state like colorado and maybe not the coasts to have a really solid conversation about this and with that mr chair will yield for questions committee members questions for the bill sponsors

Amy Mel Bacon. Sure. So we hear a lot about employment. So now a lot of resumes are being fed through like algorithmic decision making. And so the question is on screening, like what keywords pop out all the time? And then if you look in your employee pool has no one over 40, that's age discrimination. Does that make sense? the ways that we're concerned about in health care is maybe over identifying people because of their ethnicity or background that they might be predisposed or have like diabetes. And it's like, just because I'm African American and 40 doesn't mean, you know what I mean? So these are the things that we're concerned about. The truth of the matter is sometimes we don't know. People just feel the outcome. And without the disclosures of when it's being used, we'll never know, which is why this bill is also asking for disclosures. The underlying technology is only as good as how some of us say it's trained, right? The data that it's used to build its formulas and its algorithms, and that's what the concern is on the consumer, is over time we have to be sure that the tool can get to outcomes that are statistically normal, if that makes sense. So most of the complaints that we've heard thus far are about jobs. or at least the biggest cases that you can find online.

So it has to be in the bill. It says, like, in a reasonably noticeable place. To some extent, the terms and conditions can suffice, but it has to be somewhat visible in a place that people have to run their eyes over. The witnesses can, while we're sitting here, I can point you to the section, but the witnesses can probably expand on that. Other questions?

Okay, great. Yeah, I'm on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Anaya Robinson, Public Policy Director with the ACLU of Colorado, here today in support of Senate Bill 189. Senate Bill 189 takes an important step toward ensuring that people affected by automated decision-making technology can understand how those systems shape outcomes in some of the most important decisions of our lives. Access to clear, timely, and actionable information is what allows individuals to exercise their rights, contest errors, and make informed choices. The bill's approach to documentation and notice helps level the playing field between developers and deployers and deployers and the public. As implementation proceeds, we encourage the AG's office to ensure that rulemaking emphasizes usability, plain language summaries, standardized formats within sectors, and accessible channels for consumers. Transparency that cannot be used is transparency in name only. Senate Bill 189 recognizes that responsibility should be shared across the ADMT value chain. Developers play a critical role in shaping system capabilities and risks, and it is reasonable to expect them to meet baseline duties, such as risk assessments, documentation, and mitigation of known hazards. Developers must be accountable for risks that are reasonably foreseeable at the time of design and deployment based on use and known misuse patterns. Downstream deployers who select use cases, configure systems, and make operational decisions must bear responsibility for context-specific harms arising from those choices. This calibrated approach reduces the risk of over-deterrence while still providing meaningful incentives to build and maintain safer systems. Technology evolves faster than statutes. Senate Bill 189 should establish a baseline of protections and practices, not a cap on future safeguards. Colorado must be able to adapt through rulemaking and future legislation as new risks and use cases emerge, incorporate best practices from standards bodies, academia, and other jurisdictions, and encourage sector-specific measures where higher stakes demand stronger protections. Senate Bill 189 advances a pragmatic framework, empower people with usable information, assign responsibility where it should lie, and set a durable baseline that can evolve over time. With careful attention to implementation, especially around usability of disclosures and liability, the bill can strengthen trust, protect Coloradans, and support continued innovation. The ACLU of Colorado asks you to vote yes on Senate Bill 189. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Hillary Johnson. I'm the Co-Executive Director of the Colorado Cross Disability Division. I think this is my first time in the issue this year, first and last.

We are here today in September of SB 189. I was fortunate enough to serve on the task force slash working group that helped develop the language for this bill. And this bill is a good compromise, the emphasis on the compromise. As the majority leader and assistant majority leader said, no one got everything they wanted. But this is a good compromise that protects consumers and also allows businesses to keep innovating and operating I want to especially point out that for our members we are particularly appreciative that this compromise keeps the Killer Anti Act intact and also clarifies that if discrimination occurs because of the use of an ADMT, that a consumer has readjust under the Color Anti-Discrimination Act. That's really important. And not only did they concede a remedy there, but also that the liability can be split between their medical and employer or assigned to their medical and employer as appropriate. And we feel like that's a really important part of this building, a really important steps going on in the conversation. So thank you and please say yes.

There you go. Oh, were we using that other one over there? Okay, okay, okay. I will switch chairs really quick. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Marissa Molina, and I serve as the Chief Policy and Communications Officer at the Community Economic Defense Project. I'm here today in support of SB 189. We participated in the Governor's AI Policy Working Group to help bring forward the perspective of consumers and impacted communities. At CDP, we work with families facing eviction, housing insecurity, and financial crisis, and we see every day how a single decision can affect a person's housing stability. Last year, Colorado grappled with rental algorithms that raised rent prices without transparency or accountability. In Denver, these tools were directly responsible for rent increases of over $135 a month or over $1,600 a year. And while that legislation was ultimately vetoed, the problem hasn't gone away. We're also seeing the same lack of transparency and accountability showing up in tenant screenings, where outdated automated systems are using fragmented data to score applicants or recommend whether someone should be approved for a unit or not. And when that data is incomplete, outdated, or inaccurate, people can be denied housing without understanding why. This bill will ensure that people know when AI is used in high-stake decisions about their lives, understand the basis of that decision, and have a meaningful opportunity to correct bad data or request human review. And it also makes clear that that technology is not a shield from accountability. Existing anti-discrimination laws still apply, and companies can't avoid responsibility simply because the harm came through an automated system. At its core, this bill ensures that people are not left powerless against decisions they cannot see, understand, or challenge. This bill isn't a perfect solution, but it is a meaningful foundation. AI is already shaping people's lives, and it's going to fundamentally change our world. We respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Baric Abramson. I'm the president of Confluence PSG, and I served as the facilitator for the AI Policy Working Group. That group was convened with a clear mandate develop a framework that protects consumers and workers while giving Colorado a workable law that continues to foster an economic environment that spurs innovation The group included consumer advocates civil rights organizations labor technology developers and deployers and major business associations People came in protecting things that mattered to them. The process itself was designed so that everyone had to not just talk, but to listen to everyone else in the room. Over six months, two months longer than originally planned, because the group committed to getting this right, members invested hundreds of hours. 11 draft iterations of the framework. Every element of language tested against objections from every direction. Consumer advocates, businesses, developers, and deployers all influenced every aspect of the framework. No side got everything that it wanted, and all sides made real concessions and real compromises. The result was something genuinely unusual, Unanimous support for a finished framework. That coalition of consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, large and small tech companies, developers and deployers, major business associations standing behind that same outcome has held through today. The groups you would expect to be most protective of consumer interests or business interests all participated fully, shaped the outcome and remained supportive. On the policy itself, the sponsors talked through the details. SB 189 is built around five key elements the work group negotiated. Targeted scope tied to consequential decisions in high-stakes domains. Transparency obligations for developers and deployers. Meaningful consumer rights, including explanation, correction, and human review. A liability structure that allocates accountability between developers and deployers based on their actual role. And AG enforcement with a right to cure for a limited time. all with clarity for businesses to understand what's required. I'll close with this. Every element of this framework is the product of a very specific compromise, not a vague one, but a precise one, negotiated directly between people who came into that room on opposite sides of the table. Consumer advocates and civil rights organizations gave ground in some places. Business and technology stakeholders also gave ground in other areas. The working group held together not because anyone got everything they wanted, but because every member could point to something meaningful they achieved and something real they compromised on. That's what makes this framework worth protecting as written. Grateful for the committee's time, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the process or the framework.

Okay, sorry. Rep. Espinoza has one question.

My understanding is this is a shift from the 205 initial position, which did kind of make us an outlier. Can you give us some understanding of how the new bill situates us nationally? Yes. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies. Thank you for the question, Representative Espinoza. This bill does alter where Colorado had been, not just a first in the nation with SB 205, but this shifts our approach to it. In our discussions, we looked at many other states and how they were approaching this to try to create an environment that didn't make Colorado an outlier and that would allow national businesses to have some predictability and consumers moving between states to have some consistency. So this bill continues to position Colorado. as a leader in protecting individuals from discrimination in the terms of how we manage things like the ADMT and what decisions it makes. This aligns us more with some of the other states that are taking action.

Joe Theine Kevin Vick Brittany Morris and Lauren Farman

No, no. You were right. It's right under the light there. No, there's a little gray button under the light. Kevin's got it. There you go. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Joe Thein. I serve as the CEO of Southwest Health System in Cortez. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Colorado Hospital Association, representing all hospitals in our state. I also served on the Governor's AI work group, and I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 189. Senate Bill 189 represents months of thoughtful work by many stakeholders and staff. In 2025, Governor Polis convened this work group to strike an important balance fostering innovation and protecting Coloradans. I want to first thank the governor for inviting health care providers to the work group, my fellow work group members, and ultimately Representatives Duran and Representative Bacon for bringing forward a bill that captures the spirit of our work group's discussion and many of the details we work through together. Senate Bill 189 takes several important steps to strike the balance of innovation and protection in health care. Health care providers are already regulated in numerous ways. When a patient is under the care of a provider in Colorado, there are regulations and requirements that protect patients, guided by the core principle of do no harm. Senate Bill 189 allows providers who are located in Colorado to continue to be responsible for the care they provide and ensure that the latest technologies are available to patients under their care. This helps improve access and quality. I can also speak firsthand to the challenges facing rural communities in our hospitals. Had Senate Bill 189 added additional work that effectively duplicates existing protections, it would have only layered on additional costs and put at risk the financial stability of the very hospitals and providers who were at the heart of caring for patients. For advanced technologies that are marketed directly to patients and not overseen by a provider in Colorado, there are additional responsibilities for the companies developing and deploying the technologies and additional rights for consumers or patients. When all of this is combined we believe that we are striking a balance of innovation and protecting the patients in Colorado We excited for advancements that continue to help improve health care and treat patients in critical moments Senate Bill 189 allows health care providers to responsibly apply advanced technologies to how we care for people and relies on a robust regulatory framework in Colorado and nationally that prioritizes safety and accountability. Thank you for your time today.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honorable members of the committee. My name is Kevin Vick. I'm a high school social studies teacher and president of the Colorado Education Association, representing nearly 40,000 educators across the state of Colorado. I'm here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 189. Artificial intelligence has rapidly become a mainstay of our world and represents significant opportunities and risks for our educators, students, families, and for all citizens. We hear from our members that they're actively using and finding benefit from using AI platforms. They have significant concerns about what this could mean for them and their students. Colorado has been a leader in responding to this emerging technology, but as the landscape has continued to evolve, it's become clear that effective legislation must be the product of rigorous debate and discussion between stakeholders. As a member of the Governor's AI Working Group, I had a front row seat at exactly what took place to get to this point. Senate Bill 189 is a sensible compromise arrived at through hours and hours of thoughtful deliberation. It takes meaningful steps to create guardrails that protect against the most harmful risks of AI without obstructing the opportunities it presents. For example, Senate Bill 189 preserves the ability for educators to use AI in ways that support teaching and reduce workload, while putting guardrails in place where the risks are real. It strengthens transparency by requiring clear disclosure and meaningful human review when AI plays a role in adverse decisions. And it takes steps to hold developers accountable when these systems cause harm. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the committee to vote yes on Senate Bill 189. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Lauren Furman, president and CEO of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce here in strong support of this bill. And as a member of the AI Working Group and working on this topic for two years in the last six very grueling months, I just want to emphasize two things. This was a monumental task for this group, and it does demonstrate that when you put the right people in a room sequestered for six months, you can get through a very complex issue. And we developed a very thoughtful, balanced policy framework, and we used 205 as a starting point, but we did have to rehash several very complex areas of AI governance. the definitions, the disclosures, impact assessments, data retention, consumer right to correct, liability enforcement, all of these things. And not only were we trying to reach a consensus amongst the 19 working group members, but as a business association that represents businesses in Colorado, but also in multi-states. This was an incredibly challenging situation for all of us. And these are companies that want to see consistency around the nation. And this could be used as a model. So we needed to get it right. But we feel like we reached a balance that addresses both the interests of business and consumers while trying to protect Colorado's competitiveness, because we want to make sure Colorado is a place where companies want to do business. So as this bill moves through the legislative process we beg of you to recognize protect the collaborative work of this group and this framework And just want to thank the sponsors. Want to thank our facilitator, Barak Abramson, and all the folks on the working group that spent so much time to get to this very productive outcome. Thank you.

Can you hear me through this? Thank you. Yes. So Dennis Doherty, Colorado AFL-CIO. Chair, thank you for letting me speak today. The Colorado AFL-CIO is an amend position on this bill because workers are not protected in the way they were under Senate Bill 24205 or the version introduced during the 2025 special session. What makes this particularly painful is the context. Colorado's overwhelmingly support regulating AI to protect themselves from its harms. And yet this legislature and this governor have decided that the consent of the regulated is required before we can act. We are talking about corporations with more wealth than most nations on earth. And we are here asking permission to hold them accountable while they break our laws and upend people's lives. This bill provides a framework, but make no mistake, it is a rollback of Colorado's existing consumer and worker protections. Senate Bill 26189 strips away the requirements to detect and prevent AI discrimination in employment decisions. Gone are the risk management requirements, impact assessments, annual reviews, and discrimination reporting. It introduces a cure period that lets developers delay accountability and allows discriminatory practices to continue harming workers for months before any consequences apply. Under current law, this would be unthinkable, an extraordinary carve-out of protections workers have counted on for tech aides. Inbounding these concerns, labor is excluded entirely as a stakeholder when the Attorney General adopts rules defining what constitutes a material impact in consequential decisions. We are here because we believe this bill can and must be approved. But we would be remiss not to acknowledge the hard truth. Senate Bill 24205 was a standard that has been beaten up to the point our electeds refused to implement it. What we are debating today is how far we have moved from that standard. This may be the best we can do right now, but make no mistake that this is not something that properly protects Colorado workers from AI harms or something that other states should model. In subsequent years, we will need to evaluate whether this permissive bill is what Coloradans really need to protect them from those machines making their life's decisions. Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Roger Gose. I represent the Colorado Association of School Executives,

Thank you. Okay, Brittany Morris Saunders, you will have two minutes, state in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Committee members, questions for our witnesses? Reb Sober.

Yes.

Mr. Doherty, you can respond directly to Rep Sober for all his questions.

And you voted to support this policy on the working group?

And then I listened to your testimony here just today, and it sounded like it was a lot more than reservations. I mean, that sounds like a lot of complaints about pretty much the entire bill. And I wondered if you could tell us what do you like about the bill?

That there is going to be something in place rather than nothing is what I personally like about this bill. The, you know, of note is that the bill is not a direct replica of what the task force, right, in our kilo version, last version that came out. There were some add-ins that I highlighted in my testimony. that are concerning, bravely concerning to us. But this is the best that we can do right now. It's one of those situations.

I'm here.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Representative. We did have discussion this week about the right to cure sunset thing. This will, within the current version, the right to cure will sunset in three years. We have talked both with bill sponsors as well as we talked with the governor about our reservations, considering that this is an incentive for good performance for AI developers, AI deployers. We do think that a permanent right to cure would be preferred.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 189. I'm Andrew Wood with TechNet. I want to start by expressing my appreciation for the work that has gone into this bill. I had the opportunity to serve on the Working Group that helped develop this framework, and it represents a meaningful and thoughtful step forward from Colorado's current AI law. The Working Group was a good-faith effort by a diverse set of parties to find a more workable path forward, one that better balances consumer protection with innovation. After hours and hours of meetings, we were able to come to an agreement on the framework in Senate Bill 189. The bill is not perfect, but it is materially better than the status quo, and my members support it as the framework going forward. That said, I am in an amend position because my members have identified some areas where the policy can be refined even further. Some of those are things that didn't make it into the final working group draft, and some are things that did not fully carry over from that final working group draft to the bill before you. Those include refinements to the cure period, key definitions, ensuring alignment with the Colorado Privacy Act, and a safe harbor for safety-critical real-time AI. We look forward to working through those in rulemaking and where needed in future legislation. Finally, I want to commend the working group and the facilitator for the time spent reaching consensus. This process produced meaningful improvements, including how the bill addressed the liability framework and the shift to employee rather than worker in the final draft. Thank you to Majority Leader Duran and Assistant Majority Leader Bacon for sponsoring this important bill and thank you committee for considering our testimony Thank you Okay Next Amy Goodman you will have two minutes state and organization you represent You may begin

issue. Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from Jed Brown. You'll have two minutes to state

Thank you. Okay. Serena Oduro, you will have two minutes. Stay in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Okay, and finally, we have Darby Galeb. You will have two minutes state in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Okay, committee members, so we have questions for this panel of witnesses. Okay, seeing none, thank you for being here. Thank you for your time and for your testimony. Let's see. Kim Brown Williamson or Willamson John Nordmark Annette Quintana Jay Renning Adam Fox And is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify? And if there are any names that I didn't call who are online, you can promote them. Okay, we'll start with Adam Fox. You'll have two minutes. State and the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from Jay Renning. You will have two minutes state in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Okay. Zachary Taylor, you'll have two minutes. State in the organization you represent.

Thank you. Okay, next we'll hear from Kim Brown-Williamson. You will have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin.

members, questions for this panel of witnesses. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you. These witnesses raised

I believe that they are. That is something I would need to check on.

Rep. Espinosa. Let me try this another way. To anybody on the panel's knowledge, Do you believe that independent contract or employment is covered as a general rule by the domain in which they are employed?

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Representative. That was certainly the intent. Employment is one of the key areas of consequential decisions that this bill covers, and the intent was to ensure that different types of employment were captured within that. Okay.

Amy L. Bacon, do you have any amendments? Yes, Mr. Chair. We have one amendment. Sure. I do believe it was just distributed. Okay. I want to thank our amazing drafter, Mr. Schultz, one who probably knows AI law better than anyone in the actual world now. But we did find a technical fix. And so Amendment L6, the reason why this is important is because it makes references to effective dates. There are two effective dates in the bill, and after we created some amendments, we got them switched around. And so Amendment L6 puts the sections in the right order again so that the applicable effective dates apply. In the bill, there is a safety clause, but there is also an effective date for consequential decision-making that begins in January, and we needed to be sure that the bill was aligned properly. Okay.

I'm going to say I move L6.

I do not.

Okay, seeing none, the amendments phase is closed.

Thank you Should I move the bill or just close Are we good I don have any more amendments Yeah yeah yeah Okay so why don I do this I move Senate Bill 189 as amended to appropriations with a favorable recommendation.

my co-prime may make it back but we wanted to help us all out by keeping it moving so first of all I do want to thank all of you I want to thank all of the stakeholders those particularly who also supported on the task force I do think all of us you know have been on this journey and having this conversation for the last couple of years and this bill represents an opportunity you know for a statement on behalf of the state of Colorado It's not just my bill, right? It's not just the majority leader's bill in both chambers. And so with that, I will say, you know, even thank you to those who came in an amend position. As you can hear, not everybody believes that this bill goes far enough or some folks believe. And when I say the bill doesn't go far enough, it's in their respective areas. But the sandbox that we have created, I think, is actually beneficial to the conversations that we're having across the nation. At the end of the day, this bill is not typically what you hear by way of a bill that regulates AI. In fact, I wouldn't call it that at all. This bill is a consumer protection and transparency bill. The sections of this bill talk about what information should be out there and what happens if harm happens. This bill is not saying what an LLM is or what a chatbot is and what it can do. And so I would argue that even though we've had national conversations about regulating AI, that this doesn't actually do that. Rather, we strengthen our consumer protection given what we know is happening in the world. If we do not have provisions in place that are like in this bill, the truth of the matter is it might be four companies and four products that might be running our lives. At the end of the day, this underlying tech is not only developing, different entities are buying underlying tech, perhaps making some tweaks to fit their needs. But the question still remains, if a person made these decisions, we could hold them accountable. Now we're moving in technology making decisions and we should still have a framework. There are some things that perhaps all of us can talk about as a legislature as we move forward. Again, what this bill does is create a very solid sandbox that I hope that we can stay in. The bill requires reports back from the AG's office. The bill also allows the AG to make regulations to deal with a few things, including, as you heard from one of the witnesses, how this law can coexist with federal regulation, federal agencies and whatnot. Every year, if any of us have the privilege of continuing to serve on judiciary, we should see a report back from the AG's office on how many claims, how many steps have been taken and whatnot. And so when we hear terms like cure periods, I can completely agree with my brothers and sisters in labor. And on behalf of anyone who's done consumer protection or civil rights work, I can understand the hopes and disappointment in not having private rights of action. And then when it comes to business, I'm sure they always want an opportunity to cure. But what you see in the bill, for example, is there might be an opportunity to cure for 60 days, but if you If a business gets to a place where it's repeatedly doing this, the AG's office can also take that into account. And so at the end of the day, members, I want to end with what the majority leader said at the opening. I said this in a different committee on a different bill, but it was very similar, and I want to thank my colleague from Denver for also saying it. But right now, people are walking in a world where I feel like we're playing against a supercomputer that's making decisions for our lives. Where we go to school, what kind of job, our health care. And it is the role, I do believe, of this legislature

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to put on the record that notwithstanding all of the wonderful testimony and all of the hard work of the task force, that it is important to recognize that a critical portion of the committee was left out in that the legislature was not allowed to be part of any of this working group or task force efforts. So the bill comes to us without having had an opportunity to be meaningfully part of the framework or the development of the bill. However, I do commend the work that was done and recognize that the compromises that have been made are really moving us forward. And as I ask my one question, taking us back in a relative alignment with the rest of the country as we're all trying to grapple with the quick nature of how this technology is impacting our day-to-day lives. and I do commend my colleague from Denver who acknowledges that this really isn't a full AI bill, although we've called it that. I'm glad we took the definition out of that. This is a bill to move forward a regulatory scheme in relationship to the kinds of technology we're talking about in specific areas of consumer protection. I think that's a critical issue to recognize. I think the approach that recognizes also the crossover between products liability and consumer protection is critical as we look at how technology is different from human beings and making decisions and moving forward. I know that the legislature will continue to work in this area and develop more fruitful and other discussions as we move to really regulate and understand frontier models and agentic AI and other things that are not covered by this bill, as we also hope to embed those in the privacy protections of the state to allow individuals to know who's collecting our data, how our data is being used, and how we can all be protected as a society, and that's our obligation as a legislature. So I just wanted to put that on the record, commend the task force for the work, but let the community know that we understand we were not part of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also would agree with my colleague from Denver that it would have been nice to have had more early on involvement of the General Assembly. I will be a yes vote. However, there are some things I wish were included in this bill or maybe not included, one being the three-year sunset of the right to cure. That should be permanent. That's something that if at a future time the General Assembly wants to come back and relook at any part of this bill they can, but to basically force the General Assembly to immediately come back in three years' time because that's always going to be something that needs to be addressed. And having those hooks in legislation that continue to draw the General Assembly back specifically are frustrating because we have the power to be able to do that really at any time We don't necessarily need to have that trigger that pulls us to have to look at legislation. I will also add that AI technology is evolving quickly. We are seeing, you know, by leaps and bounds, I mean, anyone who follows the stock market, as you've probably seen recently, all of the trends by companies who have been investing, whether it's in the next generation of microchips and AI development or data centers, all of this has definitely been on the increase recently, and we're only going to see it grow by leaps and bounds. and the General Assembly will continue to look at this. So I'm glad that we're no longer the outlier because Colorado chose a direction that no other state followed and that now we're more in line with national norms. So thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Kelty.

Law.

Soper.

Zokai.

Carter.

Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir. Let me ask Bacon how she wants to go, Because we might have you run it or maybe we'll run it. Let me ask her real quick. We'll figure it out. Thank you. All right. And I got the, right? Oh, okay. We have a group, right? Oh, okay. We have a group, right? Okay, okay. After a special. So, what, a second? Seconds, then thirds. Yeah. Thank you. Numeric order. Yeah. Seconds then thirds. Yeah. Thank you. You may record her. Yeah. Awesome. And then. We got the new amendment. Yeah. On about Monday. Okay. Okay. Awesome. Okay. Okay. We're going to do 125 because none of the witnesses are here. Did you call Jeff? I just called. We got her. Okay. I just work here. Tell me. I'll be sitting at this table all day. Sorry. Okay. All right. Yeah, they just went and got her. I will not be keeping on this bill. Huh? Don't even ask me. This was reluctant. I have like five minutes. And then nobody told me about Monday, brother. I was like, oh. Great. That would have been nice. I want to grab some lunch today. Thank you various h Thank you. Thank you. We're good.

Yes.

Who wants to start?

There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 125 is trying to solve a problem. The problem that we're trying to solve is that currently students with disabilities are entitled to accommodations through a 504 plan, and this plan is enforced by the U.S. Department of Ed Office of Civil Rights. Recently, they had a massive termination of attorneys at the Office of Civil Rights, So they're no longer able to protect students with disabilities on 504 plans. So this bill allows Colorado Department of Education to address violations for accommodations not being implemented since the U.S. Department of Ed no longer has the staffing to be able to do that. So just to give two examples based on true stories, these are students that have a 504, so that means they have a disability and they need accommodations. This is not an IEP. An IEP, Individualized Educational Program, is something different in which students receive services. So a 504 is only for accommodations. So there was a student who has one leg, therefore he had a 504 plan because he needed to use the elevator in the school. The elevator in the school has a code, and each day the school was changing the code because all students don't have access to it. And they were not telling the student what the code was. So, instead, he was having to go up the stairs, which of course then he ends up being late to class, but more importantly, if he would fall down those stairs, then we would end up in a personal injury case against a school. That's not good for schools, obviously not good for the kid either. What happens is the legal path is to file for accommodations, 504 accommodations not being implemented because that student had to have access to an elevator as per the 504. But since we don't have enough attorneys at OCR, then it does not get addressed in time. Another example is a student with an allergy. So this student had a 504 plan for the allergy, and this is a life-threatening allergy. and the 504 was not implemented and a teacher spread around the very thing that the student was allergic to which is a violation of the 504 and the student collapsed in the school the ambulance had to come and that student went to the er but because we don't have a path for We're making sure we're implementing 504s. This didn't happen once in the school, but it happened twice. So this is why we need Colorado Department of Education to be able to take these 504 cases. So to protect students and schools, this bill allows CDE to use the same legal path as OCR, exact same. There's no change in timelines. There's no change in the complaint process. Currently, CDE already has very effective legal paths for restraint and seclusion and for special education. And so now there will be a legal path for students with disabilities that need accommodations.

Something's on. Something's on. Oh, it was. I don't understand. All I want to add is to actually thank Representative Phillips. This is just completely her expertise. I do want to be available to answer any questions. You know, often we don't hear education issues that often in judiciary, but the things that we want you all to understand as to why we are here, in addition to the end of session, is that this bill is really important to understand the components of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and to some extent the Americans with Disability Act and how we can find state pathways to enforce those very important provisions, given what we just heard from Representative Phillips, in that right now our students' abilities to be able to pursue these very important laws that are created to protect them and to prevent discrimination, we're having limited access to. And so while the federal government may be making adjustments, students' needs don't stop. And with that, we'll pause for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate what the bill is doing. I guess my question would be why have this under the State Department of Education and not the State Attorney General's office?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Because the currently Colorado Department of Education, because they already have very well-established legal paths, so then that just makes it easier for them to add another path as opposed to going through the Attorney General, which I think would be a much more complicated process, especially for parents, where CDE has very parent-friendly lanes already for special education, restraint, and seclusion. and we did that and we added restraint and seclusion in 2011 through Disability Law Colorado So there we have the expertise here that we be able to create that new path Thank you.

members of the committee my name is Emily Harvey and I'm an attorney with disability law Colorado the federally mandated protection advocacy system for people with disabilities our goal is to make Colorado the best place for people with disabilities to live and thrive I'm here today in support of Senate bill 26 125 concerning disability rights protections in public schools thank you to Representatives Bacon and Phillips and Senators Colker and Marchman for bringing this important legislation forward. This law does not create new or novel rights. Instead, it codifies longstanding protections under federal law into Colorado statute and creates a meaningful state-level enforcement process. This legislation is especially important at a time when federal civil rights enforcement has become increasingly limited and inconsistent. Students with disabilities cannot afford uncertainty when it comes to enforcement of their civil rights. Colorado has an opportunity to ensure these protections remain stable, enforceable, and accessible regardless of changes at the federal level. The bill takes practical and balanced steps to improve compliance and accountability. It requires schools to maintain grievance procedures, designate coordinators, and provide equal access to programs and activities. This is a bill about equal access and giving people a fair shot, and it establishes that complaint process through CDE. with an emphasis on resolving problems at the lowest level before they escalate into costly litigation. Importantly this bill benefits not only students with disabilities but also schools and educators. Clear standards, training and state level guidance help districts understand their obligations and address concerns early. When schools fail to provide legally required supports, the result is often greater conflict, lost instructional time and expensive legal disputes. intervention and accountability help avoid these outcomes. For students with disabilities access to education is not optional. Please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Christina Erickson. I'm the policy director for Colorado's Developmental Disabilities Council, which is a federally mandated statewide advisory council and state office We are here today because we support strengthening educational pathways for students with disabilities and ensuring that every student in Colorado has meaningful access to a free and appropriate public education Although there are federal laws that prohibit discrimination, families across our state tell us routinely that they continue to experience barriers that prevent students with disabilities from fully participating in school programs, services, and activities. This bill offers the clarity, accountability, and enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure that these rights are consistently upheld across Colorado. Families currently have limited resources when their rights are violated. The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, or OCR, has historically investigated discrimination complaints, but in recent years, it has left complaints unreviewed and thus unresolved. These aren't just petty complaints. Many are horrifying and traumatizing. As a result, many families have no timely path to accountability when school districts fail to follow the law. State-level protections and enforcement are essential to ensure that students' rights are meaningful in practice and not just in statute. Additionally, this bill codifies protections for disabled parents of public school kids. As the daughter of disabled parents, I cannot stress enough how important this is. My parent-teacher conferences when I was a little girl were held in my school parking lot because my parents couldn't get through the front door. And I would really love if future generations could avoid that embarrassment as well. This bill affirms that disability should never be a barrier to belonging, participation, or opportunity in our schools. Strong protections, clear expectations, and meaningful oversight and accountability will help ensure that Colorado schools live up to the promise of equitable education for all students. Thank you for your time and your commitment to protecting students in the state. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tess Rittenberg, and I'm the Children's Policy Fellow at the Colorado Children's Campaign. The campaign is a nonpartisan policy organization committed to making Colorado the best place to be a kid and raise a kid. We use data and research to identify what kids across our state need most, then advocate for policies that strengthen their well-being and help them thrive. Thank you to Reps Bacon and Phillips for carrying the legislation, and thank you all for allowing me to speak with you today. Protections for students with disabilities are dwindling on the federal level by the day. Colorado has the opportunity to ensure students with disabilities are supported and families have a place to turn to when there are complaints and we need to take advantage of it. As a former student with the 504 plan, I understand firsthand how much time and energy it takes for students, families, and school districts to apply for and enforce accommodations. In addition to yearly accommodation check-ins with my schools, I have individually met with every teacher to discuss my access needs from 6th grade through college, with my family and school district supplementing paperwork as needed. This worked for my disability, but it may not for other students. The process can be unclear and time-consuming and requires lots of self-advocacy as classes and access needs change. Senate Bill 125 is designed to lessen the burden for families and districts to protect accommodations for decades to come. With a streamlined complaints process and guaranteed protections, students can spend less time fighting for accommodations and more time learning with their peers. I would not have had as much success in school and my professional career without my 504 plan. This bill enables Colorado kids with disabilities like me to just be kids. I strongly urge you to vote on Senate Bill 125. Thanks so much.

State and the organization you represent, you may begin. Thank you Mr Chair and Committee My name is Elizabeth Moran I serve as Executive Director at the Arc of Colorado the state chapter of a 14 network of advocacy and resources for Coloradans with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Arc of Colorado joins many of our local Arc chapters in strong support of Senate Bill 125. Section 504 is a critical civil rights protection for students with disabilities. There have already been significant changes at the federal level, reductions in regional offices that provide enforcement of laws and education, and cuts in the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education, such that staffing is grossly insufficient to meet the need for oversight and enforcement of justice. I first became aware of academic discriminatory practices in schools when my parents sued my family's then school district for similar practices with my older sister who is nearly, and that was nearly 50 years ago. So it's really disheartening to me at this point that when I hear stories about practices that continue with little to no state level justice and oversight for those families. And we have an opportunity here in Colorado to mitigate those practices and legal challenges by codifying those protections into Colorado law to ensure that students with disabilities remain protected regardless of any changes that may, and I think are probably likely to occur at the federal level. This bill, for me, helps fill the gaps for students who also may not qualify for special education because not all students with disabilities qualify for services under IDEA or an individualized education plan and IEP. And so Section 504 ensures that these students still receive those essential accommodations and protections. I also think it's important that the committee recognize that the ADA, which is the most comprehensive disability rights anti-discrimination law in our country, was passed in 1990. So over 35 years ago, and yet somehow there still seems to be the appearance or perhaps disregard, maybe seeing it as optional or discretionary, what those expectations are around discrimination and providing services and supports. This bill would provide stronger accountability mechanisms for those students. So on behalf of the Arc of Colorado, I ask for your support of Senate Bill 125 today and in the critical days remaining in this year's legislative session. Thank you. Thank you. OK, committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses.

Amel Bacon. All right, Mr. Chair, I move L9.

Okay, L9 is we needed to clean up the language that we had in regards to CDE's financial ability to support the bill. So L9 does two things. One, it is cleanup language per the department, and that instead of just saying the department may seek funding just from gifts, grants, and donations, they may also receive funding from other agencies or receive resources from places and spaces outside of CDE. And so because this is government, we have to specifically put in law how they can access resources. We can't just assume it's allowed to happen. The other thing that the amendment does is every time you see AND 29.5-115, 115 is the section that addresses remedies and the agency's ability to enforce it. So we wanted to be sure that they could receive funding to not only uphold the underlying law, but to also go out and execute the remedies. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Rep Garcia.

The question in particular is, so on lines one through two, and agreements for resources, I'm curious, would resources be considered like in-kind? So if it's like borrowing attorneys or if there's attorneys that are going to do pro bono work, is that what you're considering with resources?

I wouldn't imagine it be limited. Perhaps they can share employees. Perhaps they can share databases. Perhaps they can share resources and tools. For things like, you know, the mediation, the investigation, XYZ. Rob Garcia. And then the second section here, 5 through 7, the department may contract with the third parties or other state agencies to support the execution of the provisions. When I think about what other agency would make sense, the only one that comes to mind for me would be like the Department of Law. Is there some other example of when another department, maybe CDHS I may imagine, but where would that come into play and why would that be necessary? Rob Phillips. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think some examples and some things that happen already with CDE is it could be like for a hearing, like they could do retired attorneys. Sometimes they go to mediation companies to get mediators, things like that. And to your point, other agencies that deal with discrimination, I can imagine CDHE, CCRD. The bill is very specific about who has jurisdiction to enforce, but it doesn't mean that they can't also move resources. This language is also to help the department rather than just receive dollars if they also want to move people around and move existing line items around that they can.

We do not.

Rob Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is really important to me. We started, I know bill sponsored, my co-sponsor has been working on it for more than a year, but last year right after session the first meeting I had was with CDE because I wanted to make sure that they were on board. And I think that for me this is a life and death situation for kids. we have to protect these kids because it does result in kids getting hurt. And I want to add to that, a 504 is also really important for kids with anxiety, depression, so we don't end up with a suicide, another suicide. So this is a very important bill for me, and I appreciate your support.

Jack Johnson. It's always wonderful to work with you. And again, we're doing this on behalf of all of our neighbors who just need support, and if they can't go to the federal government, they can come to the state of Colorado, because we believe in this.

A.M.L. Bacon, a proper motion is to appropriations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 125 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation.

Okay, that's a proper motion, seconded by Vice Chair Carter. Committee members, closing comments?

Okay, Rep. Garcia.

Okay, further closing comments? All right, seeing none, Ms. Shipley, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No. Garcia. Yes.

Soper. Yes.

Mr. Chair. Yes.

ML Bacon Day. It is It a recipe OK Do you want to look or do you want me to

You go that way.

Ms. Shipley.

OK.

No.

We got to fix our microphone situation in here. Okay, thank you, committee members. So excited to be working on Senate Bill 115.

Members, do we have questions for sponsors?

Amo Bacon. So first, just to support, I'd direct you to page 7, if you hadn't seen it. Page 7, sub H, a statement or other evidence offered by a victim or a victim's representative. There is also considerations of if the person has taken accountability and have they been rehabilitated, which you can do without talking about the impact to the victim I think part of the point that my colleague from Denver was making is that part of the whole package of consideration of course should include the victim not only as a matter of law, but as a matter of practice, because a lot of this is also driven by the district attorney. It's not fully, it's not just driven by the person who's seeking the petition, but at the end of the day, the judge has the ultimate decision-making power, but we don't want to discount the weight to your point that these statements and experiences have, which is why we wrote them into law. So according to our current statute in the Victims' Rights Act, they do need to be notified. Victims of certain crimes always need to be notified. We wrote into the statute to uphold that belief that they should have a voice, and that's why it's written there on page 7.

Chair Mabry? Representative Kelty. Any further questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, I have the... I'm just going to go in order from what was given to me by... Yeah, yeah, do that. Okay. Dan Meyer.

Do I have a Kelly Alley online? And a Jen Kilpatrick. Starting from my right, your left. State your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes.

Thank you. Sir, if you could state your name, who you represent, you'll have two minutes.

Thank you, sir. Have we turned it on? Should we try turning it on? It's okay. I've got this one. All right. State your name, who you represent. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Is there Kelly Alley? Miss Alley, state your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes.

In 1986, an 18-year-old kid named Rich Sambom was on the run after committing a series of offenses when a police officer pulled him over for speeding. During that traffic stop, Mr. Sambom panicked and shot the police officer, and that police officer was my dad. My dad recovered and went on to have a long and successful career in law enforcement, but at just 18 years old, Rich was sentenced to 96 years in prison. Fast forward nearly 40 years, and my family and I have had the opportunity to meet with that kid, who is now a 58-year-old man living with a chronic illness, multiple sclerosis. Members of my family and I participated in a restorative justice process with Mr. Sambom. And during our in-person meeting, his remorse was palpable. He never made excuses for any of his behavior, and he took full accountability for his actions. Then we learned about everything he has done to become a better person over the last four decades in prison. This mattered to us deeply because it shows he has made something meaningful out of an otherwise hopeless situation. At the conclusion of our meeting with Rich, my mother, who is an almost 78-year-old woman, said, I can't even begin to tell you the weight that was lifted off my shoulders. All these years, it felt like I've been wearing a heavy coat, and after our meeting with Rich, I was finally able to take it off. My only regret is that we didn't do this sooner. Our story is a testament that not all victims oppose sentencing reconsiderations or even release. And I understand deeply that some victims of crime want finality of a sentence, but some victims like us and many others don't. And truthfully, when prosecutors only elevate victims' voices when it serves their agenda, it only compounds the harm already done. Since our initial meeting with Mr. Sambom, he has become an integral part of our lives, and we continue to be staunch advocates for his relief. And again, while some victims care most about finality, what our family cared about was change. We needed to know that the person who shot my dad would not hurt somebody else again, whether in prison or on the streets. We wanted our prison system to do everything possible to encourage his rehabilitation, including offering him hope of coming home one day if he earned that privilege, which he certainly has. Second Look legislation sends the message that rehabilitation and growth matter and that our legal system will recognize and encourage change. Knowing that Rich is remorseful and rehabilitated has brought me and my family deep comfort. but it has not brought closure. It remains deeply frustrating and confusing that the legal system is indifferent to our support for his release So for all these reasons and more I ask you to vote in support of SB 26 because we cannot expect rehabilitation from people to whom we deny hope. Thank you. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this question is really for anybody who would like to answer. But in this bill, it says that it says by preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner no longer presents a danger to the safety of any person or the community. And preponderance of evidence per that definition, it means that they are greater than a 50% chance. So it's much lower than like beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence. I'm curious I mean you guys talked about you know making sure that you're carefully looking at all of this all the proof to make sure that they are not they're no longer a threat to society but it doesn't seem like the threshold is really that high when you talk about preponderance of evidence. Who wanted to respond? Mr. Nelson or I'm sorry Mr. Meyer. first in terms of the standard that would be met i think the most important screening mechanism what's uh set sets the bar and i'm trying to find it is what the court actually has to find so that to find even by a preponderance that the person is unlikely to pose a danger to anybody or the community and that their sentence reduction is just and i suspect espinosa as a judge could speak to this. No judge who doesn't have full confidence that this is a person who's going to be a safe member of the community and who believes that a sense reduction is not strongly warranted, I believe, will ever be signing off on one of these. Preponderance is appropriate given the nature of the factors that the judge is going to be hearing, I think, and is a well-chosen standard in light of how high the bar already is in its substance. Representative Flanel. Can you just walk me through exactly what takes place and how they verify that this person is no longer a threat? Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Sorry, Mr. Meyer. So I'll break it into the two paths, right, because there's defendant-initiated and prosecutor-initiated resentencing, and they don't work the exact same way. So starting with prosecutor initiated, that is, like it sounds, initiated by a DA or assistant district attorney who, whether because of an independent review of their files or because a community member has brought a case to their attention, decides that reconsideration of a sentence is warranted. In examples from our practice where district attorneys have reviewed cases, one category that we see frequently is cases involving severe domestic violence that took place in the 1990s and earlier when our judicial system's understanding of those issues was very different than it is today. And typically, Ms. Kilpatrick can speak to this also, but DAs, before they make, would be initiating resentencing, would be reviewing everything from prison disciplinary records to all the materials from the criminal case itself, having conversations if it's a loss of lice case with the victim's loved ones or with the surviving victim, speaking to colleagues in their office who are involved in prosecuting the case before bringing it forward. If that happens, if the district attorney decides to move forward initiating resentencing, they can trigger appointment of counsel. So that somebody to represent the defendant petitioner that would go to a hearing in front of the judge where they would consider the factors that have been laid out here including nature of the offense victim input conduct in prison, circumstances at the time, and then the judge would be making the final decision based on that standard we just talked about. In defendant-initiated resentencing for people are 60 or older, they can request to file basically, file sort of an initial petition which will trigger appointment of counsel and the lawyer will help put together a presentation often working with social workers as well, contextualizing, addressing the facts of their crime, contextualizing their life up to that offense and what led them there and then how they have grown and changed or not grown and changed as the case may be during their incarceration. And then there will be a hearing in front of the judge and from that point onward, it's similar where the judge will be considering those factors, applying that public safety standard and making a final decision. Oh, I'm sorry. Miss. Miss. Nelson. Nelson. Yes. No, I'm sorry. one point of clarification as to what Mr. Meyer just said. When he was talking about some of the old cases that we're working on now, he mentioned severe domestic violence. What he was referencing is that our clients were victims of severe domestic violence, and their culpability is being assessed in light of changing understanding of dynamics of coercive control and things of that nature. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Representative Linnell. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions, and one is dealing with the hearings. I know there's been some concern about the victim's accessibility, but can you describe what you're seeing in terms of victims actually having access to the hearing and access to seeing the decision, which might be different from even a parole circumstance where the victim is not, it's more of a black box, and why this would provide more transparency to support even the testimony we heard from the victim. What was that for? Ms. Kilpatrick. Sure, thank you. You've done those proceedings, so you'd be great. I will tell you, and I want to first clarify, this was my experience in this district attorney's office, and certainly there will be district attorneys who would oppose this. My experience was that we were able, because the district attorney has law enforcement resources, we always were able to find the victims because we had such robust resources. We would find them as soon as we were aware of a petition. We worked through the normal processes that Colorado already has. We had a victim witness unit that was incredible. And so we had those resources where we would reach out to those folks and we would start talking to them, bring them into that process. Undoubtedly, that's very re-traumatizing for some victims to be contacted years and years later. They didn't think this was going to come back up. I think what we now know and what I would hear from victims all of the time is I thought this was going to end and it didn't. And so we would work through those processes as we're working through those same things on cases that come back on appeal, cases that already have post-conviction proceedings, all of those things. So there is a really good model. I, I think one of the things we did have victims who were very opposed to though, to the, to resentencing, we had victims who really didn't want to be part of the process because they had moved on. And then, and I found this to be one of the most surprising aspects of my role, um, that we had victims who supported and were actually very, very surprised that the individual was still in prison. And one example is an individual who had been part of an aggravated robbery in a convenience store. And on cue almost, they both said, I can't believe he's still in prison. They were just so surprised. And in another circumstance, we had a victim reach out to the defendant and write him a letter. And not in support, but wanted to make sure that he, like, I hope you do well. So I think that Colorado has a really good model. Frankly, the DAs do a really good job of creating victim services. But there's also a national best practices guide through the Federal Office of Victim Services that I think folks can rely on. And we certainly were working with those. And there's also an organization called Healing Justice that works more on the innocent side, but has a good post-conviction model. Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Vice Chair. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on how victims experience this. but some general differences that I think are relevant between this and our existing reconsideration mechanisms in clemency and parole, although many of these individuals may not be eligible for parole. Both clemency and parole are extremely opaque processes. No involved party, whether it's defendants, victims, interested members of the community, can really know why one of those decisions is made. They're behind closed doors and protected by secrecy laws. They're also both repetitive. This law provides that a person may only ever get one second look hearing. It's one and done. Even if a person is denied parole, they're going to be up again in some number of years, whether it's one or five, depending on what the parole board sets or somewhere in between. Clemency can be granted for any reason at any time, meaning somebody, as soon as they're denied, could apply again tomorrow. we've tried to design as thoughtful of a one-shot process with everything carefully explained by a judge in public to at least provide clarity and understanding, which is quite different than how things usually work. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you. That's all. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think my question goes maybe to Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer, are you aware that in the process of parole, it goes through a judge, but through this we had, and it's well known, that nearly 98% of the parole risk scores contained errors. That they were using this software that had a 98% error rate. We were putting dangerous criminals back out on the street, such as Christopher Moore, who was a pearly with significant criminal history. Then we had other dangerous offenders, such as Solomon Galligan, Ephraim DeBisa, Austin Benson, Joel Lang. We were having already issues with going through a judge, going through someone else, for them to get parole as it is now. There's already cracks in the system. And also within the three years, the recidivism rate is 48% to 50% within three years. So A, did you know about this? And B, how can you be so confident that this is going to be better than what is already currently happening and all the issues that we already have? Mr. Maher. Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you for the question, Rep. Kelty. SO FIRST, JUST TO CLARIFY, JUDGES CURRENTLY PLAY NO ROLE IN PAROLE IN COLORADO. IT BEFORE A PANEL APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PAROLE PROCESS DOESN LOOK MUCH LIKE THIS IN TERMS OF THE DECISION TOOLS THAT THE appointed by the governor and the parole process doesn look much like this In terms of the decision tools that the parole board is using that a separate matter from what's going to be considered here. In my experience with parole hearings, I think parole is an extremely important mechanism, but this provides far more thought. A parole board member may be having 15 hearings in a day, making a decision about somebody who is serving a three-year sentence for drug possession and then a life with the possibility of a cruel case the next moment with no assistance of counsel, just very little of the information we have here. So I just don't think they're very comparable. And then in terms of recidivism rates, again, from that data from our DOC, and that's coming from their 2022 fiscal report, we know that people who recidivate differently over time based on age, specifically for people who are 60 and older, the recidivism rate is 1.3%. And for people who are 70 and older, it's 0.2. And that's even with our current flawed processes. I'm happy to, I mean, that's, again, their FY 2022 report. So right now, this is a population that is successful in the overwhelming majority of cases. Representative Kelty. I appreciate the information. Well, I meant parole. I meant basically just letting them out, letting them get out. When I meant judge, I meant the parole board. But the fact that the data from 2022, we have had since then significant laws that have been creating a softer and softer climate on crime and allowing people out of jail and all that. So I don't know that I'm really confident in data that is, you know, four or almost five years old. So if you have more recent information or data on that, I would appreciate if I could get a look at that. Mr. Meyer or Ms. Kilpatrick? I would just say that I can understand and appreciate your concerns. I think that we so often see people who get out of prison and they have made it essentially their life's mission to do a life sentence two years at a time. I think this population of individuals are a very different sort of inmate. We have people who commit low-level property crimes and use methamphetamine over and over again, and they represent a lot of that reincarceration and recidivism. These folks are generally in prison for such a lengthy time period that they have an opportunity to actually rehabilitate and will do a lot better. I can tell you as someone who lives in my community, I had to make an assessment of whether I would want to live and have my children live in a community with these people. And I feel far safer having someone who was in prison for 20 plus years than I see someone who was in two years. And those folks, I think, frankly, give me real pause, but less so on folks who've had a more serious and significant sentence. Rep Kelty. Sorry, Matt. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Vice Chair. Just to address the narrow question, the most recent report from the DOC is from fiscal 2024. For people 60 to 69, their three-year recidivism rate was 1.9%. For people 70 and older, it was 0.0. Representative Kelty. Any further questions for this panel? Representative Flannell. So I know I heard you guys say that this might be their only chance to get out but what about Parole what about parole 35B clemency ComCorp step down special needs parole 35C and other mechanisms where they given another chance that they could essentially get out that way? Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Vice Chair, and thanks for the question. So, I mean, I'll try to go through the big ones because that was a little bit of a fast list, But most of those mechanisms are narrow and specific and apply to a statutorily defined group just like this one. Special needs parole, for instance, is focused on individuals with very serious chronic disabilities that aren't going to get better and that impact their functioning or that have diagnoses like advanced cancer. That's not part of this population. currently rule 35b is limited to being filed a 35 petition 126 days after a conviction becomes final so that's basically asking a judge to reconsider the decision they just made with no new evidence in many cases um can you remind me some of the other ones you had 35 oh representative Flannell. 35C and what was it? Well, I guess clemency, ComCorps, step down. Mr. Meyer. Thanks, Vice Chair, and thanks for the reminder. So with ComCorps, that's typically available a short period of time before a person's parole eligibility date. So that's not really a sentence reconsideration mechanism. It's more a thing that happens as a sentence is ending. In terms of 35C, that's limited to individuals who can prove that their constitutional rights were violated at trial. Whether a person's constitutional rights were violated is a very different question than second look poses. It might be the case that some of the most egregious cases we can think of also involved ineffective assistance of counsel or an erroneous jury instruction. that's kind of besides the point in terms of whether this is somebody who is safe to be released in the community and whose sentence is unjust. So there's no direct way under Rule 35C for a court to consider simply, is this the right sentence? Representative Flannell, any further questions for this panel? Thank you for your testimony. Do I have a Nate Marsh? Patty Dalton? Courtney Sutton? Andrea Tillinghast? How many of those do we have online? All three. One more. Heidi McCollum. Kazi Houston. Is there anyone in the room who is testifying either against or amend? Okay. State your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. name is Nate Marsh I'm a senior deputy district attorney in the 23rd judicial district representing Douglas Lincoln and Elbert counties and I want to talk about this bill a little bit and urge a no vote here because of a couple things Practically in Colorado the only way to have this bill actually be applicable to you is we're talking about someone who has multiple murder-to convictions or a violent habitual offender. That's really the only practical way in Colorado to serve 20 calendar years under the laws of the state of Colorado. So most of these other offenders will be out and will not be eligible for this type of relief. It's like a case that I prosecuted in Douglas County where he killed both his sister as well as her boyfriend and the dog that they had. He's serving 99 years. Those are the type of cases that are eligible under this bill. That's the type of conduct you have to have. Additionally, this is concerning because when we're talking about a rehearing or looking at something like this, evidence is fading over time. Victims may not be there. You're asking prosecutors who are not part of this, judges who are not part of this, to now make determinations about cases that happened many, many years ago. For example, some of the cases that would happen here, we may not even have evidence that's still there given retention policies and those types of things. So this would be impossible to recreate. It's also concerning because this would potentially reach inconsistent justice where you're having different judges in different jurisdictions applying these factors differently. And so depending on where you are in Colorado, this may end up being applied differently. And it's also concerning because second chances already exist. This is not a bill that's necessary or needed. Representative Flannell mentioned a number of them, the special needs parole, the 35B. These are all types and second chances that already exist. This is not just a single chance, but rather another chance among many. Thank you so much. I would urge a no. Thank you, sir. I have a Patty Dalton online. Ms. Dalton, state your name, who you represent. You'll have two minutes. My name is Patty Dalton. I am representing myself. Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, I am here in strong opposition of this bill. Henry Clark murdered my husband, Jim Dalton, and my friends, Rob Gears and Beth Wade, and shot me and left me for dead on November 20th of 2023. My husband and all peace and security is gone. Mr. Clark was convicted in February of this year and sentenced also in February of this year, and the co-defendant is still awaiting trial. This is an excruciating long process, but sentencing is paramount for victims. It is not a closing or an ending, but it is a significant marker and the beginning of a very long exhale. If convicted criminals are guaranteed to have the opportunity of freedom based on age and time served, that exhale will never happen. This is even more significant for victim witnesses and their safety. If the person they testified against is guaranteed an opportunity of freedom, this means the victim witness will never be free and never have peace or safety. This bill values the lives of convicted criminals over those that they harm. There are no provisions in this place for victims to recover from their losses, and this bill would have them vulnerable to more trauma and negatively impact daily life with fear and uncertainty. Mercy to the guilty convicted and sentenced is blatant cruelty to the victims. Victims have a lifetime sentence of grief and loss and trauma. that can never be reduced. The convicted and appropriately sentenced offender should not have the guaranteed opportunity for freedom. I respectfully and peacefully and strongly urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have Andrea Tillinghuis? I'm here. State your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes. All right. My name is Andrea Tillinghast, and I am here today as a survivor and a victim's advocate speaking in opposition to, sorry, SB 26115. So I understand that rehabilitation matters and that people want to believe people can change. But I feel it's important for this committee to understand how offenders impact victims and families long after sentencing. The offender in my case is currently serving 32 years, but before this sentence he has already been incarcerated multiple times, including a prior prison sentences of five years and eight years. He is now nearly 50 years old and 12 years into his current sentence. His criminal history includes assault with a deadly weapon, stalking, harassment, kidnapping, home invasion, menacing, and repeated violent offenses. The final assault against me was one in which he intended to take my life, and he made it very clear to me that that's what he was going to do. When he was arrested for the final time, my daughters were 1, 11, and 16. Sorry. Today, my older two daughters are married and starting families, and my daughters were not named victims in the criminal case, but they are secondary victims in every way that matters. They grew up carrying fear, instability, trauma, anxiety, emotional consequences from violence and coercive control that they did not choose. And what people don't understand is that convicted crime is not always the part that lasts the longest. The coercive control, intimidation, fear, and the psychological trauma continues long after the bruises fade. So after 14 years of domestic violence, I found the courage to stand up, fight for my safety, and break the cycle of violence for my children. We've done the work to heal and move on and live our lives. But this bill is deeply concerning to victims to me because the victims and his family is serving a life sentence from the impact of his crimes. And this bill tells victims and families that the lifelong impact of these crimes, the safety we've fought to rebuild, and the accountability imposed on original sentences are secondary simply because offender reaches a certain age and served 20 years. are imposed for a reason and victims should not have to fear their time of safety being cut short simply because an offender has grown older and served 20 years. I've already had to face him in court before. I'm currently preparing to speak to a parole board and victims should not have to repeatedly fight to maintain their safety. Victims allowed to speak at another hearing is not the same thing as feeling protected or safe. You know the only safety we've really had is the prison walls. And I just ask this committee to please consider not only the offenders standing before the court, but the victims, children, and families who continue to carry the lifelong impact of these crimes decades later and the victims being drugged through the court system. Thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. I have a Ms. Houston. Kazi Houston. Thank you. State your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Cassie Houston I the legal director at the Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center Today I reading the statements of Charlotte and Jay Callahan who are unable to appear today From Charlotte Callahan Wozniak the Callahan family strongly opposes Senate Bill 26115 These offenders were convicted and sentenced and the judge and jury determined the punishment and fit the crime. Nothing has changed, no new evidence, no new facts. So why should they be allowed to reopen their case simply because they've reached 20 years of time served and are now older? My brother Henry Callahan was murdered in 1982. After 20 years, the offender became eligible for parole. He's shown no remorse or redeeming qualities or rehabilitation, yet our family is forced to relive Henry's death repeatedly, sitting through parole hearings and writing letters to fight his release. Henry's murderer has been denied parole at least seven times. The parole board has already done the right thing, upholding his life sentence, fully aware he has served over 20 years and is now over 60. Proving the same point many times, this murderer should not be released. Why should he or other offenders have another bite at the apple? From Jay Callahan, my brother Henry was murdered in Boulder, Colorado at age 24. At the time, there were no life sentences without parole and no victim impact statements at sentencing. The murderer was a drug addict that preyed on society at every opportunity in the short stints he was out of prison from a very young age. If the current sentencing standards were in effect, he would surely have received a life sentence without parole. Senate Bill 26-115 supposes that criminals over 60 are unable to commit crimes. However, the Mandalay Bay murderer in Las Vegas who killed 60 people and injured 850 was 64 years old. I'm over 60 and I find this notion insulting. Colorado already has a parole system, including special needs parole and community corrections that my family has been dealing with for 20 years that make sure prisoners who deserve to be free are free and the ones who deserve to stay in prison stay in prison. This proposed law is an embarrassment to victims' rights advocates and could reverse all the hard work that has gone in over the years to upgrade sentencing and establish victims' rights in Colorado. Please do not make victims relive the trauma of the past with this bill. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a Courtney Sutton? Yes. State your name and who you represent. You have two minutes, ma'am. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and the Committee. My name is Courtney Sutton, and I'm the Public Policy Director for COVA, the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance. We oppose SB 26-115. I would like to thank all the victims and survivors sharing their experiences with the committee today. It's so important that we have your voice. When a case is sentenced and a victim hears 40, 50, 60 years or more, no victim or the public expects the offender to be released after 20 or 25 years or receive an alternative sentence. This policy would create resentencing and release opportunities for serious offenses like homicide, attempted murder, strangulation and crimes against at risk adults. The bill outlines an exception for life without possibility of parole sentences, sex offenses, human trafficking if a victim was under 12 or if the victim was a first responder. However, these offenders could see a second look if a prosecutor agrees. The policy does not require victim agreement or input on these cases. Victims may share their support or concerns with the prosecutor and the court, but there's no enforcement to ensure their voice, safety, and concerns are addressed. In our current system, offenders have multiple opportunities already to reduce their prison time, parole, seeking special needs parole, seeking a pardon or clemency. In addition to all these options, this bill would create yet another avenue to undermine their sentence and force crime victims back into court after 20 years to tell and relive their trauma. It another hoop to jump through when we have processes to review these sentences already and we believe that this is unacceptable The proponents speak of hope and this hope being tied to a second look but I ask you to look at the surviving family members that do not get a second chance with their loved one We respectfully urge you to oppose SB 26-115. Thank you. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Kelty. give us a share. And thank you everyone for being here and testifying. I know this is not an easy thing to do, and I appreciate you. I guess my questions really would be either from Ms. Dalton or I think it's Tallahassee or really whoever wants to answer. But, you know, they say that victim statements matter, and I hope they prove it today, and I hope your statements do matter because I know they do to me. But can you tell me in 10, 20, even 30 years, are you relieved of your impact that you had to go through, of the violent crimes, the crimes that you had to endure after just 10, 20, even 30 years? And what would it do, Miss Tillyhast, what would it do to you and your family if the monster that harmed you was released and just could be right now eight more years? I think that question is for both Miss Dalton and Miss Tillyhast. Miss Tillyhast first. Yes, thank you for your question. It will severely impact us. My middle daughter has already moved to California because his sentencing has keep getting or his parole date keeps getting pushed back. So, yeah, he's up for parole in two years and she's expecting a baby. So she's moved to California out of state trying to hide from him. She's she we live in fear. I have a husband now and a stepson. And, you know, my daughter, my youngest is 13 and she's never met him. And, you know, just him trying to insert into our life and looking over our shoulder and wondering if he's going to complete his mission. He makes a really good case. He's done all the appeals. He's going through court. I have private investigators still calling me. He still tries to have family members reach out to my older daughters now that they're not 18 because they were not technically victims of his crimes. And we can get no support. It crosses multiple jurisdictions. So all of his reach outs and all of his things, you know, there is not even anything that the prison DOC can do to stop him from harassing us. There is a cease and desist order that he refuses to sign. And so but there's nothing to say, you know, there's not any more crimes. So I am not confident that if you were to ask for reconsideration, that it wouldn't be granted. And we will immediately look over our shoulders if he is free. Thank you. Ms. Dalton. Absolutely. 20, 30 years down the road, there's still going to be the same amount of fear and anxiety and loss. I, too, have three daughters that will never see their father again, will not have that support and that foundation, that fundamental foundation in their lives. They don't have a hope of a second chance. They will never their lives are forever forever changed and there no legislation and there no resources no protocol for them or me to get anything back We do not get a second chance The fear the trauma will never leave There not a day goes by that I don see my husband and my friends dead that I don deal with the consequences of being shot and what that has done to me. The financial impacts, peace, security, 20, 30 years down the road, those are all still going to be there. There's no way to remedy those. And these persons who commit these unbelievable crimes and affect and destroy so much should not be given a hope that the rest of us, that the people that they impacted do not get anywhere near that same type of hope of any type of recovery. Representative Guilty. Thank you, Sharon. And so what I'm hearing, and thank you for answering. So regardless of whatever rehabilitation, in someone's opinion, this legislation, this bill, will it make you more or less whole? Was that for Ms. Dalton? Yes. Ms. Dalton? Yeah, no, there's nothing in this bill that would that would help victims recover in any way. No, there is what was stolen, what was taken cannot. And if this person is allowed the opportunity to be free, it would force me to go into hiding. There was no way. You would not be made whole. I would be diminished to nothing. Representative Kelty, any further questions for this panel? Thank you very much, panel. Next, I have Emily Toffee Nestevelle, Lauren Hayfinger, Lindsay Bernard, Justin Summers, David Frost. How many? And Elizabeth Albo. How many is that that are actually online? Anyone in the room? Again, last call. That is against our men. And anyone online that is against our men. All right. Ma'am, starting with Emily. Tofty Nesvile, if you can state your name for me, and you will have two minutes in who you represent. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Emily Tofty Nesvile, and I'm the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center. Thank you to all the victims and family members that are here today sharing your story and how they will be deeply impacted by this bill if it's passed. I'm here today to stand in solidarity with these victims in opposition to Senate Bill 26-115. This bill creates yet another pathway for offenders and convicted of serious violent crimes to seek early release from prison. Just four years ago, Colorado strengthened the Victim Rights Act to improve transparency around sentencing and release. 115 moves in the opposite direction by creating even more uncertainty for victims and survivors who are already forced to navigate parole, community corrections, appeals, and repeated court proceedings for years or decades after. after sentencing. Victims should be able to trust that the sentencing imposed will be served. Instead, this bill forces families back into court after 20 years to live the worst day of their lives before a new judge that was never present for the original case, the original evidence, or the devastating impacts on the victims or their communities. This is yet more court dates for victims and their families and less accountability for the offenders. Discussion around this bill has suggested that narrow scope will not impact homicide cases. As you've heard, this is simply not true. In fact, you are hearing surviving family members in homicide cases would be directly impacted. Many of those cases are not even limited to the category requiring prosecutor agreement for the second look, leaving the door open for offenders to use the legal system to further harass and intimidate their victims. Another promise broken under the Victims' Rights Act. Supporters of this bill argue that people age out of crime. While recidivism rates may decline with age, they are not zero. There are numerous examples of offenders who are over 60 when they commit their crimes. Research also shows that arrest and reincarceration rates for individuals over the age of 60 range from 14 to 36 percent. Victims and community safety cannot be simply discounted based on age alone. This bill prioritizes sentencing reconsideration for offenders over the stability, certainty and healing of victims that they were promised through Colorado's criminal legal system. For those reasons, I oppose Senate Bill 115 and request your no vote. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Do I have a Ms. Albo? I'm here. Thank you. State your name, who you represent. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Elizabeth Albo, and I am here in opposition of Senate Bill 2611. On October 20th, 2019, we lost someone we loved and cherished deeply. Her name was Jen. She was a mother, a daughter, and a best friend. We called each other Bunny. She was one of 42 victims who lost their life to domestic violence in the state of Colorado in 2019. Jen was strangled to death by her husband, F. Young. The violence was so severe that her neck broke in multiple places. The coroner described it as one of the worst strangulations they had seen. Jen was left on her kitchen floor for over 14 hours, her face covered with a blanket. After killing her and leaving her on the floor, this monster removed a diamond watch from her body, an item that was never recovered a watch that her young nine-year-old son now left without his mother was looking for young and his family continued to withdraw money from jen's account day after day took expensive and personal items from her home and her loved ones and family wasn't able to even get back in her home for after four months i could share more disgusting and disheartening details but the most important point is this that victims and their families do not have the upper hand in this process and it is one of the most grueling and trying. For the next two and a half years we fought with everything we had to pursue justice for Jen and to protect her nine-year-old son. We did it while we were hurt, absolutely devastated, scared, carrying severe trauma and still trying to take care of our own families careers and children Personally testifying in her case was one of the most horrible situations Young was convicted of a second murder and sentenced to 44 years in the Department of Corrections with a 16 to 48-year sentencing range based on the severity of the crime, his manipulation, and a deliberate and horrific manner in which he killed Jennifer. His earliest His parole eligibility is 2051. His earliest release date is 2062. If this passes, his resentencing could be as early as 2039, well before serving even half of his sentence. We tell victims that they must fight, they must stand up, and they must try to rebuild their lives. Passing 26115 would shift even more burden onto victims and families by requiring them to relive the harm and respond again years before the sentence has even been served. We do not get back our loved one. A nine-year-old boy does not get back his mother. Why should a convicted murderer sentenced to a specific term for a reason get time back? Jennifer was never even able to turn 40 years old. There is now a 16-year-old boy whose mother was ripped from his life, and he still questions every single day why his mother was murdered. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on Senate Bill 26115, and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a Mr. Frost? State your name and who you represent. You have two minutes, sir. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and. uh uh counsel yeah my name is david frost my daughter amber faye frost um was murdered back in december 31st 2022 this was a horrific domestic violence case where her baby the father of her children, decided to brutally murder my daughter, spent hours beating her and strangling her to death, leaving behind six children and the rest of us devastated. I had something written down here, but I'm kind of going off the fly here because a lot of things people are saying here makes a lot of sense and have already said what I was going to say. So what I'm going to tell you is that in our experience going through the whole trial system, our DA left a plea deal on the table for him and he should have been, he was charged with first degree murder and was facing life in prison. The DA left a plea deal on the table the whole time. The judge had an opportunity to throw that out. He didn't do that either. So there we are. He accepts a plea deal and is sentenced to 40 years in prison. So instead of life, he got 40 years. And then he only has to do 75% of that. And then he gets good time on top of that. And now we want to come in with another way for him to get out of jail early. After just 20 years, he changed our lives completely. He devastated his own children's lives and everybody around. is a need to get out early. He needs to be accountable for what he did and stop with all of this letting everybody out early. He needs to do a sentence just like everybody else and all of it. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Mr. Summers. Mr Summers Thank you Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Justin Summers and I am a staff attorney at Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center I be reading the statement of our client Beth Quinlan today who is unable to be here My name is Beth Quinlan and I am here in opposition to Senate Bill 26-115. I'd like to share with you our family's experience in regard to a violent crime committed in Alamosa in July 2020. John Woodman, my longtime boyfriend and cherished father, grandfather, son, brother, and friend had not been in contact with myself or any of his family members for over a week. After we received text messages from John's phone that didn't sound like him, we contacted Nathan Vigil, the man who was living at John's house. Mr. Vigil gave us several stories about where John was. On July 12th, several family members and friends were allowed on John's property to look around. After a couple of hours of searching, he was eventually found buried four feet underground. Two of his son-in-laws found his decomposing body discarded like trash. He was found with three trash bags over his head, a belt around his neck, and his body covered in a tarp. That is something that our family will never get over. Mr. Vigil was arrested the day that John was found because he was in violation of his parole for previous offenses. He did everything he could to delay the trial. From the beginning to the end, it took five and a half years and 50 court appearances, not including the trial and sentencing, to finally end this legal nightmare. Every delay was another way for him to continue to victimize John's family and friends. Mr. Vigil has been in trouble since he was 12. He's now 48 years old, and prior to John's murder, he had been convicted of 12 felonies. In February 2026, Mr. Vigil was finally found guilty of all charges against him and sentenced to 68 years. We were pleased with the sentence, knowing he would not be eligible for parole until he's in his 90s. If Senate Bill 26115 passes, it will cause families to be re-victimized. We should be able to trust that the sentence imposed during sentencing is what will actually be carried out. Families are forced to revisit cases decades later, and that is traumatizing, to say the least. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on Senate Bill 26115 and would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there a D.A. McCallum? State your name, who you represent. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Good morning. Excuse me. Good afternoon. My name is Heidi McCallum, district attorney for the fifth district. I'm also on the board of directors of COVA. I address you today equally in both capacities. In addition to what this bill would accomplish, defendants do already have the ability to have a right to a fair trial, multiple opportunities for appeal, sentencing reconsiderations allowed by statute, requests for clemency, opportunities for parole, the ability to get earned time, credit, and step-down transitions like community corrections. But when we would look at this bill from the perspective of a victim, this bill would bring victims back to court to try to convince a second judge 20 years later to uphold an original judge's sentence, possibly fearing that if they don't speak up, then all the work that the jurors put in at the underlying trial would be for naught. Additionally, reopening those wounds and the pain of the victims from decades earlier. It would be extremely difficult to reconstruct the full evidentiary record at a second look hearing that much later. Judges and prosecutors retire and move on. Witnesses relocate. A global and holistic context is essential when any judge is determining a sentence. These hearings would entail trying to educate a judge who wasn't at the trial 20 years ago, who didn't see any of the demeanor of any of the witnesses or hear for herself any of the witnesses testify A judge who hasn seen any physical evidence from the trial a judge who may be unaware of the reaction and the resolve of the jurors during a trial a judge who has a limited knowledge of what the impact to the community was two decades earlier This bill allows a judge to decide if a reduced sentence is appropriate, in essence by reading a transcript of the trial, as that judge is only tied to the emotion, the behavior, the demeanor of not only the witnesses, the defendant and the victims in the case. It's hard for me to imagine a judge who has no firsthand knowledge of the trial of a crime of violence to hand down an appropriate sentence. They're removed, and as such, their knowledge is somewhat removed. What this bill doesn't do is give victims any kind of trust in the criminal justice system. All it says to victims is, if a judge sentences a defendant, we can't believe what she says. So who do victims turn to when they can't believe what a judge says? It leaves victims and survivors angry, resentful, and distrustful in the only system set up to treat those same victims with fairness, respect, and dignity. There is little fairness, respect, or dignity that this bill affords those victims. I urge your opposition to SB 26115, and I thank you for your time. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Kelty. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I believe, well, really anyone can answer this, but I think it was for Mr. Summers. This bill would be, in the most recent years, the 10th early release style bill that we've had. Do you believe, one, that this is an insult to victims' rights? And two, do you believe that these types of laws increase our crimes in the state and create new victims? And three, do you believe laws like this make it easier for criminals to do crimes in more of a violent way, furthering our victimization of our innocent people, but because of less fear of actually having to serve the time that they really do deserve. Mr. Summers. Thank you for the question. Respectfully, I would direct any questions you might have to our executive director, Emily Tautin-Estavl. Thank you. Representative Kelty. I apologize, you were directing that to... Ms. Emily. Yes, thank you, Chairperson and Representative, for your question. I think it's a great and complicated question, but generally what I can say is that it does really mitigate victims' rights and what we see for victims' rights, the promise that we make to victims when they come into the judicial system and they participate in these cases. They really participate in sentencing and share how the crime has impacted them. Judges take that into consideration when they impose these sentences along with a whole host of factors, and then they hand out their sentences. And if victims can't take that away from the court, knowing that that is what the sentence is, I think that when offenders hear that and they can't trust that that is what their sentence is going to be, that does actually send the message to all Coloradans that this is not a system that they can trust for accountability in the long run. And it's important that when someone's given a sentence, that that is a sentence that we can count on. Reb Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ma'am. And then if I may ask one more question, do you believe that laws like this would then prevent a victim from actually coming forward and pressing charges or trying to get what is actually deserved to them in justice for fear that the person committing these crimes on them would just be back out on the street again, and whether it's in 20 years or 30 years, it doesn't matter. Do you think it would prevent them from coming forward? Ms. Emily. Thank you, Chairperson, Representative. Yes, when we see, we hear this from victims all the time. When victims' rights are held and reinforced consistently, what we hear from victims is that they will continue to participate in the criminal legal system. They will cooperate with law enforcement. They'll report future victimization to the systems, and they will have long-term better mental health outcomes. We have research that supports us, and we know this to be true from self-reports from victims as well. And so when we have a system that victims can't trust, that what they're told by judges, by prosecutors, when that isn't true over time, they can't trust the legal system. They can't trust that their rights are upheld, and then they can't trust that the system is what they're being told that it is. Yes, I agree with what you said. Representative Kelty, any further questions for this panel? seeing none thank you panel for your testimony do I have a Sarah Anderson and Eric Davis Marine Maureen Cain. Martha Nelson. Charlotte Evans. Mr. Vice Chair, the statement of Charlotte Evans will be read by another witness that signed up because she's not available today, but it is submitting her statement. Thank you. Do you know – Nathan Egan. Is there a Nathan Egan online? Is there anyone in the room that is testifying for that? I have not called their names. Or outside. Is there anyone? Oh, is Claudia Carrillo. Anyone else online that I have not called their name that would like to testify in favor? Starting from my right, your left, state your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Maureen Cain. I am an attorney. I have worked in criminal legal reform for probably the last many decades. Before July 1st 1977 a person serving a life sentence in Colorado was eligible for parole after serving 10 years Between 1977 and 1985 a person serving a life sentence was eligible for parole after serving 20 years From 1985 to 1990, a person was eligible for parole after 40 years on a life sentence, and in 1990, we moved to life without the possibility of parole. In 1985, after a long development of a presumptive sentencing system, the Milky Bill, as it's called, absolutely in one swoop doubled sentencing. That was before the fiscal notes were required for bills and increased prison population. In 1993, the legislature developed extraordinary risk crimes and, again, increased penalties. There are many more bills that passed during those years that increased the penalties in the state of Colorado. We often hear that during the last five years or so there have been soft on crime bills. I would beg to disagree. Many of the bills that have passed came through the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Many of the others were small bills that were targeting specific populations, were evidence and database and would have a small impact because, as we know, our prison population is growing. This is a bill that's trying to maybe bring the pendulum back a little bit and try to create a little bit more balance for a very small number of people. Look at the individuals that are listed in this bill. There will be a full due process hearing, and the determination will be individualized rather than just creating a full swoop. This bill will sunset in three years, and that's a good thing because what will happen is we will get the data because there is a reporting mechanism in this bill, and we will see who the judges decide to release, who the district attorneys decide should be reconsidered, and we will decide, is this working? Is this not working? Is this fair? Is this not fair? So I think that this bill and its efforts is a very small step forward to try to create some individualized evidence-based balance in a system that is taking place across the country and in many states and in the federal government. Thank you. Thank you. State your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Eric Davis, and I represent myself. When I was 17 years old, I was sentenced to spend life in prison. Obviously, I had no hope at that point that I would ever get out, and I thought I would die in there. After a series of Supreme Court decisions, most notably Miller and Graham, I realized that there might be a possibility that I might get out someday. At that point, I really made a decision to change. And I said, well, I have to be ready just in case. I learned how to be a plumber. I learned how to run 3D printing machines. I got my paralegal degree. And I made every decision I could possibly in a positive way. Luckily, after spending 34 years in prison, I was released through the JCAP program, and I was now 52 years old. What I decided upon that release is that every single day I would try to figure out a way to do something positive that day. Do something that was affecting people in a positive way. since then I've gone into jails I've gone into prisons I've counseled young men and women about the decisions they have to make and how they get to make the decision every single day when they wake up whether you're in prison or whether you out here those people are trying or I should say give an opportunity in prison like this give an opportunity to know that if I stay out of trouble if I program, if I do the right things, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to stay out of trouble in prison. If I'm given an opportunity, a second look, and this is a really small group of individuals that would be eligible for this. If they're given that opportunity, if they decide to stay out of trouble, they make prisons safer. They do the right things. they make people in prison working in prison living in prison safer and they will have due process they will have an opportunity to have the courts everybody look at them and it's not a guarantee it's just an opportunity a small number of individuals will meet this criteria and it probably should be a small number of individuals that meet this criteria not everybody in there should be given a second opportunity but if you're given a second opportunity and you know you have that chance, wouldn't we want them staying out of trouble programming, learning, growing, building their lives just on the chance that one day maybe they'll have an opportunity? Thank you. Thanks, sir. Did we get Mr... Mr. Egan, did you want to read your testimony? I would. Thank you very much. State your name and who you're reading for and you'll have two minutes. Thank you. I'm reading the testimony of Ms. Charlotte Evans, who was originally signed up to testify but was unable to be here today. Greetings, Chair and Council. My name is Charlotte Evans. I'm the Executive Director and Founder of Colorado Crime Survivors Network, whose mission is to support, advocate, collaborate, and build coalitions for victims and offenders, in addition to at-risk youth. The work that I've done has yielded great reward and great knowledge. One reward it gave me was the opportunity to be seated at the United States Supreme Court and submit my amicus brief testimony on behalf of those kids sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The knowledge I gained through my experiences working with survivors is that each survivor is different, as is their journey. They should never be treated as a monolith group. However, today I come to you as a victim family member and a mother. A victim because on December 21st, 1995, a 15-year-old kid carelessly, aimlessly, accidentally shot a gun that took the life of my three-year-old son, Kason Evans. That kid was sentenced to life in prison. After the passage of quite a bit of time through prayer and restorative justice, I took a second look. I went against the norm. I forgave him. This forgiveness gave me the closure that I needed, the peace that I needed as a victim. And not only did I gain healing, but I also gained a friend. I could return back to community again. I gained faith again. I gained trust in a broken society again. This kid, Raymond Johnson, served decades in prison, but has been home for five years. And in the last five years, I have not been disappointed because I gained a son. As a mother, I can live again. I can hug again. I have a son again. I forgave Raymond Johnson, so I have hope again. Please understand that offenders change, but victim survivors change too. This bill is an opportunity for the criminal system and victims to have a second look. Thank you for this opportunity to share my words. I am in support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Nelson, state your name who you represent You will have two minutes So hello I Marta Nelson I with the Vera Institute of Justice I the director of sentencing reform there and I testify in support of SB 115 By passing this bill, Colorado will take an important step towards both holding people accountable for committing serious harm while recognizing that people can and do change. Public opinion supports this balanced approach with close to 80 percent of voters in national polls supporting individualized resentencing review from incarcerated individuals who served at least 10 years. This bill aligns with the recent reforms adopted in other states. In 2025, Delaware passed a bill that, among other things, allows people 60 years old and older to petition for resentencing based on rehabilitation after serving 15 years. As of today, 16 states have passed legislation beyond juvenile life without parole resentencing that allows judges to reconsider a range of sentences based on rehabilitation and current public safety consideration. So safety is always top of mind for legislators considering these bills, and the news thus far is good. As more people return home under Second Look and other discretionary release mechanism, there's now data from these jurisdictions suggesting that these policies are safe mechanisms with low recidivism rates. Vera has compiled this research into a fact sheet that I have attached to my written testimony. I want to highlight one state, Maryland, which released people over the age of 60 who had served decades in prison. In Maryland, following a 2012 Maryland Supreme Court case invalidating the convictions of people convicted of violent offenses before 1981, a total of 188 people were resentenced and released, 80% of whom had been convicted of murder. The average age of release was 64. Five years from release, only one of the 188 people had been rearrested. By following the research, passing Senate Bill 115, Colorado can demonstrate that it does not need to choose between promoting accountability, safety and justice. This bill accomplishes all three. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, state your name, who you represent, and you'll have two minutes. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Sarah Anderson, and I am the Associate Director of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization focused on accountability, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. I am also a resident of Granby, Colorado, and I am here in support of Senate Bill 115. This bill creates a carefully structured second-look process for individuals who are at least 60 years old and have served at least 20 years of their sentence. While narrower than originally proposed, it still represents an important step forward for Colorado. Second look policies are grounded in a simple principle. People are capable of change and courts should have the ability to recognize this. Research shows that the likelihood of reoffending declines significantly with age, particularly among individuals who have already served long prison terms. This legislation allows judges to evaluate an individual's conduct during incarceration, including participation in programming, disciplinary history, and evidence of rehabilitation, while also considering the seriousness of the offense and the interests of victims and other impacted communities. It does not guarantee release or erase past harm, but simply allows courts to reassess whether continued incarceration is necessary to protect public safety and serve the interests of justice. Second look policies can also help Colorado manage the rising costs associated with its aging prison population, while ensuring resources remain focused on those who continue to pose a meaningful public safety risk. Although this bill is more limited than the original proposal, it gives Colorado the opportunity to begin evaluating a measured resentencing process. We hope lawmakers will continue building on this framework in the future. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to support Senate Bill 115. Thank you. Members, do we have any questions for this panel? Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Ms. Cain. Of course it is. Yeah, yeah, you know. You're my favorite person to ask questions of. Thank you. Looking at the fact that, I mean, you called it a three-year sunset. I read it, and I looked at it more as a three-year window, that it opens the window, incentivizes any individual who meets the criteria to apply for their one evidentiary hearing within that three-year period. The fiscal note indicates that there's 98 potential inmates who would qualify, and then it further delineates that it's about 39 who would be able to apply. Do you anticipate all 39 applying for an evidentiary hearing within this three-year period? I'm just kidding. Mr. Chair and Rep Sober, thank you for the question. Since individuals have one opportunity, if the record of the person is not something that will meet the criteria of the statute, I doubt that everyone will meet those criteria. That's why we built the six-month evaluative period in there. before anybody has to do any work on the case, including the district attorney and the judge, so that if the person's situation, if they're continuing to try to contact witnesses or they have remained, we know that there's a lot of gang involvement in prison. They continue to be involved. Those people would not be people that we would probably file petitions for. But I'm going to tell you, and I think Ms. Nelson kind of referred to it, a lot of their clients are women who in the 90s experienced domestic violence and responded in violent ways and were convicted and had long sentences. and those are a lot of times the people that we think will apply. They may not be all of the 39, but they will be people that are studied and demonstrate these criteria. Representative Sober.

Ms. Gain. Ms. Gain.

Representative Sober.

Representative Espinoza.

Ms. Kaine.

Rep. Espinosa, any further questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you, panel.

Last call. Anyone would like to testify for or against online or in the room? Seeing none. Testimony phase is closed. Sponsors. Any amendments?

But Rep. Espinosa has. Are there any amendments from the panel or from the committee?

Second.

So my amendment goes, if you turn to page four of the bill, as it was originally written, there's an exception to the people who would not be eligible for the program, which would have allowed for the prosecution agrees that the interest of justice would be served by granting post relief from the terms of the sentence and the relief is consistent with the interest of the public safety That exception in my view swallowed the non of the other provisions in talking to the sponsors, especially because subsection 11 already allows prosecutorial processes in this system. I suggested it was duplicative. My understanding is that the sponsors, and as Ms. Cain just said, the individuals who have worked on this agree with the amendment. The rest of the lines in this amendment simply make conforming changes to the request to take that out.

Thank you. I'll just say we support this amendment. We worked with Rep. Espinosa.

So first, I want to thank the victims and survivors who came here today to share their stories. I know that takes enormous courage. I have shared a little bit of my story as a survivor of domestic violence myself. I do not take that testimony lightly. And, you know, one of the things I was sitting here thinking about today was my experience as a child. When I was a kid, my father spent years in prison, and we lived with fear and uncertainty about his eventual release date. We were terrified about it when I was a kid. So I understand that personally. I know exactly what that feels like. I know exactly what that feels like. I know what it was like to be in the second grade being worried about my dad getting out of prison. But it's important for us to be clear about what this bill does and does not do. This bill does not guarantee anyone early release. It does not move away from long sentences. It only triggers after someone has served 20 years. The vast majority of prisoners on Earth who serve more than 20 years are in the United States. The United States has a disproportionately high number of long-term prisoners. as some analysis indicate that we hold 40% of the world's population in prison that is serving life sentences 83% of life without the possibility of parole and 20% of the global prison population with only 4% of the world's population and I refuse to believe that we are more violent or that a disproportionate percentage of Americans deserve incredibly long sentences our system is not serving the public, it does not make us safer and I can tell you it does not serve victims This bill does not shorten a sentence automatically. It simply provides a chance for a hearing for people who are over 60 who have already served at least 20 years in prison. And even then, a successful petition only guarantees you the right to another hearing where a court can consider resentencing after input from victims, DAs, and weighing the totality of the circumstances. And for the most violent offenses, the kinds of crimes that we heard about today, those individuals are only eligible to begin the process if a district attorney agrees to it. That's a safeguard that already has an analogy in current law. And this bill does not change that What this bill recognizes is that people can change after decades that age matters rehabilitation matters and our justice system should at least allow for individualized review in limited circumstances We just heard conversations between Rep Soper and Maureen Cain. 39 people in the next three years eligible, and I agree with Ms. Cain. how many of them are actually going to have the perfect, shining resume to get released. So this is a careful and narrow bill that does not guarantee the release of anyone. It only guarantees a process for people to get a hearing, to discuss whether they deserve a chance to have a shortened sentence. And again, existing law already provides a path for this with permission from the DA for the most horrible crimes that we heard about today. That's unrelated. It's important, of course, in the scheme of our justice system, but it's unrelated to the work we're doing here today, and I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Thank you to those who have come to share as well as who worked on this bill. You know, we are here in the last couple of days of session in judiciary where we've had a lot of tough conversations. at some point some of us kind of recognize the sequence of how committee will go and the things that we have to receive, embrace, and respond to, particularly in support to our constituencies that have been hurt and harmed. And so my co-prime and many of us in this committee lead with that because, one, just generally being trauma-informed, you never know who's in the room and what it is that they experience. Also, it is important that those who have been harmed feel like they have been heard. And even though sometimes we may come up with policies that folks disagree with, the thing that we rest on is our responsibilities to policy and our systems. It has been long held practice in the criminal justice system to evaluate sentencing, whether it is clemency and pardons, whether it is Rule 35A, B, or C, particularly where you can petition to have your sentence re-evaluated or looked at, or even to some extent the conversations around parole and the ability to kind of slowly work your way back into community. What Senate Bill 115 does is in the spirit and vein of all of those things that I mentioned. The issue with our criminal justice system is to balance a few things. It is the interest of the state, a.k.a. our victims and constituencies, and the public interest on behalf of all of us in regards to what it is that we commit to with holding people accountable, including our costs. The folks who will be coming in front of judges potentially through this are people who have been sentenced to opportunities to parole, which means a jury or a judge found that they should not be remanded to jail forever. And so it was important for us to write into the bill to be clear that the only way someone who was sentenced to life without parole to be able to be considered would be through the district attorney. office. But the other folks that we talked about do have, to some extent, potential expectations of being released. What we are questioning here is if someone has served 20 years, which is overwhelmingly critical mass of all the sentencing structures that we have in the state and over the age of 60 where decades of research have shown about growth, maturity and recidivism, then they may qualify for this, and particularly only for a three-year period here in the state. And so in regards to thinking about a criminal justice system where we balance our ability to afford the accountability systems, the ability to have a judge or jury remand people to a fixed amount of time, and the idea that they potentially could be rehabilitated if not reenter community. We believe that for this demographic and age group, some of these things coalesce. And as a matter of policy, we should be able to leave it to the judicial branch who works every day in their expertise to weigh the options to potentially have someone reenter community just a little bit earlier. And so this is something we talk about quite often here. Thank you again for allowing us to bring this policy forward and to bring it forward in a context that is not unique to Colorado. Many states across this country have taken this on for the reasons that I laid out as well. And so we are not unique. However, we have been working on it for quite some time, and I'd be remiss to not mention our former Denver District Attorney and Beth McCann and the conversations we've been having about this for quite frankly almost a decade. And so with that, Mr. Chair, you know, we encourage an aye vote.

I move to Senate Bill 115 to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation.

That is a proper motion and a proper second. Representative Clifford.

Thank you. Representative Slaw.

I couldn't vote no faster or stronger. Representative Slaw.

Thank you. Representative Silver.

But thank you. Briefly, I want – no, briefly. I just want to comment on we had some individuals who were in the room earlier, and I think the ages range range from about elementary school all the way up to high school students. And. I just want us to understand and have some perspective about what we're talking about. Those high school students had to be between 16, 18 years old. we live in a society in a country where in which we could put those kids in jail for the rest of their life without having a conversation and having as many chances as letting them out as possible we give sentences that are longer than the country that we exist in or live in have existed The reality is yes we have to take as many chances to look at these these longer sentences and these older individuals that are in custody as possible The individual, Mr. Davis, Mr. Davis sat in front of us. A man who had a life sentence and he sat in front of us redeemed. We have to keep taking second looks and as many as possible. So based on that, I'm going to be a yes.

Yes. Clifford.

Espinosa. Yes.

No. Garcia.

Kelty. No.

Pass. Soper.

Sokay. Yes.

Respectfully, no. Avery.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay, that passes 7-4. On to the Appropriations Committee. We're going to stand in a brief recess. Only, don't go anywhere, maybe like five minutes. you should know if it's coming it's not like we're not Thank you. We're adjourning. We're adjourning. We adjourning On Monday On Monday Oh wait We need Ms Shipley back Where'd she go? Where'd she go?

Do I need Ms. Shipley here to? Thank you. Yeah, we have to, we have to, yeah. Monday. Yeah. Speaker. Yeah. Yeah.