Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 107

Let's do this. The morning roll call is 35 present, zero absence, zero excuse We have a quorum Senator Kirkmeyer, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance

Approval of the journal. Senator Lindstedt.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, no.

Wow. I still have it. That motion is adopted. Senate Services.

Committee reports.

Message from the House.

Message from the Revisor.

Mr Majority Leader thank you Your Excellency Mr President Colleagues we have another special motion to proceed out of order for someone other than His Excellency the President I make that motion to proceed out of order for a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege?

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to defer this to my good senator. for me.

Gracias, señor Presidente.

I ask for a moment of personal privilege.

Hoy es el día del niño. Una tradición apreciada. Today is the día del niño, which has become a cherished tradition across many of our Latino communities. It's an important day for many Coloradans. We stand firmly with respect and honor for everyone, especially on this day for our children. So my colleague and I, the good senator from Platteville, we're excited to observe this celebration. Dia del Nino is a day dedicated to honoring, valuing, and respecting our children. So we look forward to passing the torch to these young folk and grateful that they are with us

Welcome to the Senate. Mr. Minority Leader.

Any objection? Seeing none, the motion is adopted. Further moments of personal privilege? Seeing no further moments of personal privilege, they're reading the bill's consent calendar.

Any discussion on any of the bills? Seeing none of the motions, the passage of all the bills on third of the bill's consent calendar. I don't see any no votes lined up, and so we'll move forward. Senator Zamora Wilson, that's a mean pop lock.

Senator Zamora Wilson will be recorded as a no vote on Senate Bill 171 and House Bill 1214. Senator Rich.

uh let me put my glasses on uh 1214 senator rich will record as a no vote on house bill 1214

and house bill 1214 senator baisley record as a no vote on senate bill 171 and house bill 1214 Senator Pelton R.

Senator Pelton R. Recapable to House Bill 1214. Senator Carson.

Senator Carson represents no vote on House Bill 1214. Senator Liston.

Senator Lister will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1214. Further no votes? Seeing none, with a vote of 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absences, 0 excuses. Senator Bill 171 is passed. Co-sponsors? Great bill. Just a... Please? Oh, Senator Exum.

Any other co-sponsors on 171? Oh, Senator Judah.

Please add the president. With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, Senate Bill 173 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators, Marchman, Kip. Co-sponsors on 173. Please add the president. With oh and Mr Majority Leader as a co on 173 And Colker And Lindstedt And Frizzell And Pelton R. Further co-sponsors on 173. With a vote of 35 eyes, zero no, zero absence, zero excuse. House Bill 1290 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators Lindstedt. Please add the president. And Senator Wallace. Any other co-sponsors on 1290? And Senator Carson. Liston. Kirkmeyer. Catlin. Pelton B. Were you pressured to raise your hand, sir? Okay. Mr. Minority Leader. Bright. Colker. Seeing no further co-sponsor. Oh, Pelton R. And Zamora Wilson. Seeing no further co-sponsors on 1290. With a vote of 35.0.0.0. Absent or excused. House Bill 1052 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Roberts. Sullivan, Kirkmeyer, Catlin, Marchman, Gonzalez, Judah, Kip, Doherty, Mullica, Frizzell, Benavidez, Rich, Helton R., Colker, Weissman, Lindstedt, Exum, Snyder, we are on 1052, Ball, Bright, and Cutter, and Mr. Majority Leader. Please add the president. And with a vote of 29 eyes, 6 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1214 is passed. co-sponsors. Please add the president and Colker. You can't raise your hand, Jerry. The Senate caucus, minority caucus will be fined $1 for, I'm just joking. further co-sponsors on 1214 seeing none with a vote of 35 eyes zero no zero absence zero excuse house bill 1260 is passed co-sponsors senators marchman wallace ball kirkmeyer Exum, Gonzalez, Doherty, Colker, Kip, Pelton B, Judah, Snyder, further co-sponsors on 1260. Mollica. Please add the president. And we will now take a senatorial five. Because you told me to. Oh, after thirds, I didn't read my script. We were not in the senatorial five.

Senator Doherty.

Oh, heck no. Please tell us why you want a third reading amendment.

The motion is Senator Daugherty's request to offer a third reading amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and permission is granted. There's an amendment to the desk.

The carriers are not required to disclose when a patient's health benefit plan is governed by state law.

To the amendment. Yes.

Further discussion on L14. Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L14. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 35 I 0 no 0 abs 0 excuse L14 is adopted further discussion senator seen or further discussion the motion is the passage of Senate bill 17 as amended are there any no votes with a vote of 35 I 0 no 0 abs 0 excuse Senate bill 17 is passed both sponsors senators Marchman Wallace, Kip, Henriksen, Cutter, Exum, Roberts, Snyder. Please add the president.

Senator Ball.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 13-13. Are there any no votes? Senators, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, with a vote of 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, and 0 excuse. House Bill 13-13 is passed. Go sponsors. Senators. Mr. Minority Leader. Marchman. Cutter. Kip. Gonzalez. Kirkmeyer. Doherty. Wallace. Catlin. Bridges. Roberts. Mullica. Pelton R. Please add the president and Senator Exumon's co-sponsors on 1313. And any other co-sponsors on 1313.

documents Senator Benavidez Thank you Mr President I move House Bill 26 on third reading and final passage Further discussion Very good Further discussion Seeing a further discussion in motions of passage of House Bill 1283 are there any no votes

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 174 Senate Bill 174 by Senator Roberts and Representatives Carter and Soper concerning the prohibition of lead generation marketing for legal services

Thank you, Mr. President I move Senate Bill 174 on third reading and ask for an aye vote

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1193. House Bill 1193 by Representatives Martinez and Lindsay and Senator Wallace concerning vision tests for pre-kindergarten students.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1193 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Will the clerk please read the title of SB 26 170. Senate Bill 170 by Senators Coleman and Bright and Representative Bacon concerning creating a task force to study how to expand access to effective public schools for Colorado students.

Oh, just James. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move Senate Bill 1, we move Senate Bill 170 on third meeting in the final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1242. House Bill 1242 by Representative Paschal and Jackson and Senators Roberts and Carson concerning interlock restricted license requirements for impaired drivers and in connection therewith, making an appropriation.

Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1242. Are there any no votes? Senator Samora Wilson, Baisley. With a vote of 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1242 is passed. co-sponsors, senators, Kip, Marchman, Lindstadt, Ball, Cutter, Benavidez,

I'm so sorry, Mr. Shoffler. I didn't hear that. If you could read that one more time. What was that title, Mr. Schaffler? I'm sorry, Mr. Schaffler. You don't need to read. Whose hand is up? Senator Pelton Aura.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1258. Are there any no votes? I feel like everybody's hands should be up right now, but they're not. With a vote of 35 eyes, 0 no, 0 absence, 0 excuse, House Bill 1258 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators Pelton B. Wallace. Marchman. Kirkmeyer. Further co-sponsors, Senator Bridges, Senator Kipp, Henrickson. Liston. Any other co-sponsors on 1258? This is going to kill me, but please add the president. Now, Gonzales. Danielson. Ball. Sorry about that. I know. All right, co-sponsors again. The last few were Gonzalez. Who else did I call? Ball. Mr. Majority Leader. Is there anybody else that said co-sponsor that I called a second ago? No? Okay.

The motion is reconsideration of Senate Bill 170. Are there any no votes? Oh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have and reconsideration is granted.

The motion is the passage of Senate Bill.

Ah, Mr. Majority Leader.

I'm confused. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 170. Are there any no votes? Senators Baisley, Zamora Wilson. Oh, it was just co-sponsorship. Just co-sponsors. With a vote of 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absences, 0 excuse, Senate Bill 170 is pass and repass. Co-sponsors. Senators. Cutter. Mr. Majority Leader. Amabile. Kirkmeyer. Bridges. Judah. Benavidez. Frizzell. Carson. Kip. Gonzalez. EXIM No you don't Carson you're good Thank you Now

Senatorial 5 Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

we are in session. The Majority Leader will be fined $1 for referring to the President as a Majority Leader, that is not a desired demotion, and therefore we'll pay that $1 fine. But I understand-

Recognize the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The members of Joint Budget Committee don't have to go home, but they can't stay here unless they want to. Now, Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Majority Leader, would you like to move to proceed out of order for that, Mr. Majority Leader?

Just to be clear, the motion is to proceed out of order to take up special order second reading of Bill's consent calendar which consists of Senate Bill 165 at the hour of 1010 a.m. uh that is not the look here the the motion is that you've heard the motion forget it all those in favor say aye polls no the eyes have it and it's soon proceed out of order now majority

that's excellent the motion to take up Senate Bill 165 with special orders at the hour of 1010 AM this requires two thirds vote all those in favor say aye polls no okay the ayes have any motions adopted Senate Bill 165 all special orders consent at the hour of 1010 AM special orders second reading reading bills consent calendar Senator Exum Thank you Mr President I move that the Senate resolve itself in the committee of the whole for consideration of special orders second reading on bills consent calendar You vote the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself in the committee of the whole. Consider it a special order of second reading bills, consent calendar. And Senator Exum will take the chair.

Will the clerk please read the title of the bill on the special order, second reading the bill's consent calendar. Senate Bill 165 by Senators Roberts and Pelton R. and representatives of McCormick and Soper concerning measures to support species conservation and in connection therewith authorizing an appropriation from the Species Conservation Trust Fund.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The motion is to accept the bill on the second reading of order consent calendar. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and that bill would be adopted. Majority Rodriguez.

All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And the motion is adopted. The committee will rise and report. Oh, no. Oh, let's go, Tony. That's up.

Senator Exum. Thank you, Mr. President. We've had one bill on the consent calendar. Mr. Shufflin, please read the report. April 30, 2026. Mr. President, the Committee of the Whole Begs leave the report. It has had under consideration the following attached bill, being the second reading thereof. It makes the following recommendation thereon. Senate Bill 165, passed on second reading, in order to engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senator X. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for adoption of the report. The motion is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of. 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse. The Committee of the Whole Report is adopted. Senate Bill 165 passes the second reading order of gross place counter for third reading and final passage. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up special order second reading of bills. Further motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. Senate will proceed out of order. Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate take up special order second reading of bills, which consists of Senate Bill 138, Senate Bill 172, House Bill 1005, 1006, and 1312 at the hour of 1014 a.m. The motion is to take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 1014 a.m. This requires two-thirds vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And that motion is adopted. The Senate will take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 1014 a.m. Special orders, seconded in the bills. Senator Axel. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate resolve itself in the committee of the whole for consideration of special orders. Second reading the bills. You vote the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Senator Resolve the self-committed. The whole book is a special order. Second reading the bills. And Senator Exum will take the chair. Good job, man. All right. Get it done. Second order. The committee will come to order and the Coke rule is relaxed. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 138. Senate Bill 138 by Senators Doherty and Mullica and Representative Stewart Kaye concerning measures to reduce the administrative burden on the health care system.

To the committee report.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the committee report to Senate Bill 138. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Committee report is adopted. To the bill. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title to Amendment L010.

Senator Doherty.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L10? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Amendment L10 to Senate Bill 138. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill. There's an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schockler, please read the title to Amendment L11. Amendment L11.

To the amendment. Senator Doherty.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L11? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Amendment L11 to Senate Bill 138. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And that amendment is adopted. To the bill. Senator Doherty. Thank you. Senate Bill 138 repeals and modifies certain requirements placed on health care facilities and insurance carriers and limits how other requirements may be placed on them by state departments. And we urge an aye vote.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 138? on the question for us is the adoption of Senate Bill 138. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 138 is adopted. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 172. Senate Bill 172 by Senators Hendrickson and Kipp and Representatives Basenicker and Paschal concerning the Front Range Passenger Rail District.

Any further discussion on the Committee Report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Transportation and Energy Committee report to Senate Bill 172. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Senator Kipp. Thank you. So, folks, this is actually kind of a really big deal, in my opinion. So there has long been the dream of having passenger rail along the front range. And, you know, so I think the ultimate vision is for, you know, passenger rail along I-70, which we currently have with Amtrak, right, and then passenger rail along I-25 from this will do Fort Collins to Pueblo, but eventually we are looking at all the way down from Wyoming to New Mexico. I think ultimately the hope is that this is going to be the first step in achieving the dream of making sure that we have good passenger rail out here in the West So I ask for an aye vote Thank you Is there any further discussion

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I got to hear this bill in transportation and energy, and really just wanted to kind of talk about a little bit uh not that i necessarily have uh issues with front range passenger rail i think that it's something that's being looked at i think it's an asset uh to a number of communities but i just wanted to take an opportunity to kind of talk about how it's structured and the route that the front range passenger rail board decided to do and so uh we were handed a map in committee i'm familiar with front range passenger rail but if you have a chance you can pull it up yourselves and see how they created this route for the Front Range Passion Rail. And the sponsors are right. It's supposed to be from Fort Collins to Pueblo. And it's coming down from Fort Collins along the I-25 corridor. And then as soon as it hits Longmont, it dips over to Boulder and goes along the 36 corridor down into Union Station. And then it gets back onto the I-25 corridor. And so that dip that goes west is my community. That's Adams County. And so it's definitely the Front Range passenger rail board's prerogative to draw whatever route they want. And I'm not here to argue that and understand they're probably able to kill two birds with one stone by getting Boulder and Boulder County in that area access to rail. But I think where I'm concerned and where this originally was, and the sponsors mentioned there were amendments in committee, is that you can't circumvent a community and pretty obviously circumvent a community and then ask that community to pay for that rail. I think that that's really difficult when they're not within a vicinity of the stop. There's not a stop within Adams County to then come up with a district that you want them to pay into for something that they're probably not going to use. And so we did run an amendment to get one of the communities in Adams County out of the district. Front Range Passion to Rail Board has had a lot of discussions during this process to keep people out of the district. Castle Rock chose not to have a stop in Castle Rock. They're not in the district and they're not paying. Weld County doesn't have a stop. Weld County is not in the district. and so I think that that I just really want to be clear that you know I think when we look at this and we look at what fairness there is and how we're setting up this taxing district that that we really bring in communities who are going to be impacted who are going to utilize it and who want to be a part of it the other thing too about my community is we still haven't gotten our fast tracks finished we've been paying for RTD for our fast tracks for a number of years and it still hasn't been completed. And there are discussions that we may have to go back to the voters to ask for more dollars to complete our fast track system in Adams County along the end line. And I think that that's a really difficult thing when you put a community in a taxing district for something they're not going to use and then potentially puts it into jeopardy when you have to go back to them and ask them for more money to finish a line that they will use and that puts that into jeopardy and I think that that something that obviously is being talked about within Adams County and is a realistic thing and that just the reality of what we dealing with in Adams County I think that, you know, when we talk about this and we talk about how districts are drawn, you know, I asked in committee, you know, how do you get to a five mile radius with 20% of the geographic area, 20% of the population? I couldn't figure that out in committee. And I don't know how. It just feels arbitrary. But I do know that I've lived in this community. I've lived in Adams County. They are along the I-25 corridor. There's not a stop in Adams County. and and so the folks of Adams County at least the area that I'm talking about along the I-25 corridor I think there's not a high chance that it's going to be highly utilized I will also say too that it gets complicated when you start looking at the map and I've dug in on this and you know and I've worked with the stakeholders to really kind of address it and the original the original map that was being thought about brought in the city of Thornton the whole city of Thornton and they changed it but in changing it they didn't they then brought in the city of North Glen but what complicates this is that that we're bringing in municipalities to it but when I look at the stop that we're talking about that's in Jefferson County it's over by the old Westminster Mall on 88th and and Harlan and that's the closest stop to Adams County essentially, is that there are unincorporated parts of Adams County that are much closer to this stop, that are within a half a mile of this stop, but they are not in the taxing district. They are more prone to use it if they're within a half a mile, but they're not being taxed, but then we're asking to tax, you know, they're not in the bill now, but we were asking to tax the city of Northland that's seven and a half miles away. And so I struggle to wrap my head around that, that you don't want to tax a population that's within a half a mile because they're unincorporated, who are more prone to use this asset or this rail, but you are willing to tax a municipality that's seven and a half miles away. That's a little tough to wrap my head around. So that's why we ran the amendment, you know, trying to figure out how do we make sure that the folks who are in this taxing district that they're going to utilize it that it's a fair way of taxing I understand what the sponsor said that they have shrunk the district you know but I still think that even when you're shrinking the district when you're adjusting the district we want to make sure that it's being done in the most fair way there is a municipality that that I've lived in that's within my community that asked not to be a part of it and so we ran an amendment not to have them be a part of it I think it was an appropriate ask I hope that that sticks throughout the process because I do think that what they're asking for is appropriate. And really just wanted to come up and explain a little bit with how my community is dealing with front-range passenger rail and some of their thoughts on it with being circumvented with the chosen route. Thank you, Senator Mullica.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 172? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of Senate Bill 172. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The ayes have it. and Senate Bill 172 is adopted. Mr. Shoffler, please read the title to House Bill 1005. House Bill 1005 by Representative Mabry and Bacon and Senators Danielson and Judah concerning measures to reduce barriers in the Labor Peace Act to promote good faith collective bargaining negotiations and in connection therewith reducing an appropriation.

To the bill.

Thank you. Senator Judah.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1005?

There's an amendment at the desk. Thank you, Mr. Schopler. Please read the title to Amendment L-009. Amendment L-009, amend the amendment.

That's a proper motion to the amendment.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment L-009?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not really sure the problem that this amendment is seeking to solve, and we just saw it, so we can't really dig into that now. But what I would say is what I see here is opening up the door to targeting employees. If someone is newly hired and they also happen to want to be part of a union, this would just clearly open them up to firing, retaliation, the behavior that we wish to, limit by doing away with the second election in the first place. So you can see the possibility where someone could just be picked up or targeted because they are a newer employee who wants to join the union. I highly encourage a no vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to support the amendment offered by the good senator from Grand Junction, 009. I think this is, we're going to have a number of amendments, I think, which are built around the concept of having more transparency, more information out there for folks to see if we're going to go down this road. You know, to me, this is one of the pieces of legislation where you just have to ask yourself, what's the need for change? We've got a good arrangement in Colorado with the Labor Peace Act. It seems to work pretty well between business and labor. I don't see the need to change it, but if we're going to go down this road, and I'll have an amendment around transparency shortly as well after we vote on this one, but I think this one simply gets at the fact that we should, you know, avoid bad faith actors out there. The amendment would make it an unfair labor practice for an individual to seek employment with the intent of organizing a union or to conceal union affiliation from a prospective employer. This prohibits deceptive or bad faith employment practices tied to union organizing. The amendment ensures that labor organizing efforts are conducted transparently and in good faith rather than through concealment or manipulation. You know, if the real intent of changing this law is to help workers, let's at least make sure that all of the actors involved here are conducting themselves in good faith and that the information is out there for the workers to see, and there's not deceptive activities, unfair activities going on behind the scenes. So I think this is an excellent amendment. Thank you.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Yes, a few comments on the bill. As I said, you know, it's interesting this is coming very late in the session. We had this same discussion last year, and, you know, I think at the end of the day, We all know that the governor did not sign the bill, but here we are again taking on this change, which I don't think is necessary. You know, we talked a lot about on some of our previous bills coming through, particularly the one around Tabor, about the declining competitiveness here in Colorado. And I think a bill like this is just going to exacerbate that issue. We gone from by some measures number three in competitiveness within the country for businesses and job creation and opportunities sinking down to number 11 A recent study came out from the Colorado Chamber Foundation saying we lost 98 companies that have either left the state or have decided not to come here They've calculated that adds up to at least 13,000 lost jobs. I think it's pretty clear that Colorado is becoming a less desirable state for companies to move to and to remain in and create jobs. The entrepreneurial spirit that we have had in this state as a great western state for many decades, I think quite frankly is fading and a lot of people are realizing that and particularly if they're in businesses, small businesses, entrepreneurial businesses, They're asking themselves whether Colorado is the best place to keep their business and create jobs and opportunities. And so we look at a bill like this and we say, why? Why do we want to upset a system that's worked quite well for our state historically? We have a good relationship between business and labor. People have, you know, employees generally do pretty well here, but folks want to change the system and make it more mandatory, make it easier, you know, for the union entities to organize. And I can understand politically why that's desirable in some quarters, but I don't think it's good for the health of Colorado. And so I have an amendment here that I want to. There's an amendment at the desk. I move. Oh, excuse me.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment L-008 to the amendment. So this, again, this amendment is really built around transparency, information for the public, and information particularly for the employees at the companies where the union is going to be working to organize. And this amendment would require that unions to provide a detailed financial report justifying all dues, fees, and assessments charged to employees who refuse representation. So, you know, it just entitles folks to get access, you know, to what's going on in terms of what type of dues and fees they're going to be charged. This amendment ensures transparency and accountability in union finances. Under the bill, employees may be subject to union-related financial obligations such as agency fees without clear visibility into how those funds are used. This creates a lack of accountability for how dues and fees are assessed and spent. Now, in the past, the absence of this kind of accountability has resulted in non-union employees paying nearly identical contribution rates to union employees. For example, in 2005, the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, set an agency fee at 99.1% of full membership dues. It was only after non employees objected to this exorbitant fee that it was reduced down to 56 So you know this amendment really entitles everybody that employed out there at the company not just those who want more union organizing, but even those employees who don't. They should have access to full accounting and information. By requiring a detailed financial justification, This amendment ensures that employees understand exactly what they're being charged for and prevents arbitrary union fee structures. So again, I think while the bill, in my opinion, is very much unnecessary, I do think if we're going to go down this road, we want to make sure there's a lot of transparency, there's a lot of information, and employees are treated fairly. And that's what this amendment 008 gets at. Let's get all the information out there for people to see what they're going to be charged. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I rise in support of L008. It kind of cuts right to the chase of one of my objections to the policy and the bill, in that with just the single vote and 51% employees wish to organize, the balance, the 49% that maybe chose not to in the most extreme case, I think should be afforded the opportunity of more transparency and clarity around what the expectations are, what the costs are, where the expenses are going. and this amendment, you know, drives to that point about how, how under a collective bargaining agreement, those folks that had chosen not to or did not want to be part of that organization, how they're treated in the grand scheme of things. So I think, again, I think L-008 accomplishes a goal at the very least of helping bring clarity and transparency to the balance of the workforce. I ask for an aye vote on L-008. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like my colleagues, you know, we tackled this issue. Last year, here we are addressing it again. Union workers do good work in this state. There's a lot of this state that doesn't have union workers, and they get things done very well, very economically for our communities. With that, there's an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffer, please read the title to L011.

Senator Pell-Narr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L011.

Thank you. This amendment, it protects a uniquely vulnerable and seasonal workforce. You know, agriculture operations face very distinct, very different challenges than most industries, including the seasonal labor perishable goods and fluctuating workforce needs Applying rigid collective bargaining changes to this sector could disrupt operations and increase costs during critical production periods like around harvest By exempting agricultural workers, this amendment ensures that the bill does not unintentionally harm an industry that operates under fundamentally different labor conditions. this isn't a one size fits all state a one size fits all policy so I think amendment L011 would be a great addition to this bill thank you

thank you Mr. Chair so what amendment L011 would do would be to single out and target agricultural workers to meet a different threshold than any other worker in the state So it would require them to meet an affirmative vote of at least the majority of all of the employees rather than those voting, which is, again, unreasonable. And then or a three quarters or more of the employees who voted. So, again, we're getting after the agricultural employees in a way that we are not other employees, which is unfair. And I think they've been through enough this year, if you ask me. but in order to keep them treated as fairly as any other worker in the state, we need to vote no on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L012 to House Bill 1005.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment would require union security agreements to be re-approved by employees every three years. This amendment ensures ongoing workers' consent and accountability. and this bill removes key safeguards that previously required heightened employee approval before union security agreements could take effect. Without periodic reauthorization, these agreements could remain in place indefinitely without reflecting current worker preferences. By requiring regular reapproval, this amendment ensures that union security agreements remain supported by the workforce over time. I have a couple notes here. So an amendment requiring re-approval every three years ensures that individual autonomy is preserved and that workers are not subjected to perpetual representation by an entity. they may no longer support honoring the constitutional right to choose one's associations. Also, we have institutional accountability that's mandated. So regular recertification forces unions are consistently prove their value to the workers they represent, preventing the stagnation and air, sorry, in the, well, the control that occurs when labor leaders are insulated from their members. And lastly, economic freedom is also maintained. It prevents a minority of past employees from imposing indefinite financial burdens on current and future workers, ensuring that the labor peace framework remains dynamic and responsive to a modern mobile workforce. By implementing periodic re-approval, Colorado can protect the fundamental rights of its workers while ensuring that collective bargaining remains a voluntary, accountable, and truly representative process. So I urge an aye vote on amendment L012. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further

at any point. This is all voluntary all the time. And the purpose of this bill is to reduce the barriers that workers are facing as they choose to move forward with their organizing efforts, not build up new ones. And so requiring a new election every three years is the exact opposite of the intent of this bill and what the workers are asking us to do away with. So I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L014 to House Bill 1005.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment would exempt Colorado businesses with less than $10 million in annual revenue from the bill's provision. And this amendment ensures that compliance costs do not fall hardest on the lower revenue businesses. We've already had, like, as you've heard me say over and over again, the regulations that we put on our business are causing small businesses to leave, and so I think this is really important. The bill applies uniformly across all employers, but the financial and administrative burdens of compliance can be far more significant for businesses operating on tighter margins. By tying applicability to revenue, this amendment ensures that smaller, lower revenue businesses are not disproportionately impacted by changes to labor law. I urge an aye vote on L014. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So this is an amendment that is designed to exclude workers that happen to work at a smaller company. And actually the impacts of the affordability crisis that we face across the state are disproportionately felt by workers in smaller companies So I don believe that workers should be discriminated against because of the size of the company that they work for and I know that they don either which is another reason why the workers across the state have stood up and demanded that we pass the Worker Protection Act. So as to exclude those who work for smaller companies, again, goes against the exact goal that the workers need us to achieve here, and I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to reiterate that this protects the right to contract. For small firms, the personal and flexible nature of employment relations is a core property right, imposing rigid, streamlined unionization processes. At this scale, it can disrupt the fragile labor peace that has allowed Colorado small businesses to thrive for decades. Again, I urge an aye vote on L014.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, members, we're having a lively discussion about unionization and voting on unions and so forth. and we're speaking about affordability, I want to give you some good statistics here about affordability. As it relates, a lot of people have forgotten this, but just really seven years ago, the statewide minimum wage was $11.10. That was statewide. Today, it is, as of 2026, it's $15.16 an hour, which is 36.5% higher than what it was seven years ago. That's a pretty substantial increase. But it's even more so in the Denver area because Denver, I believe the Denver City Council, they have set their minimum wage more so than the statewide. Once again, back in 2019, which was just seven years ago, the statewide minimum wage was $11.10. Today, the minimum wage here in Denver is $19.29, which is almost a 74% increase. No wonder small businesses and businesses in general, whether you're small or large, are having a hard time. Your labor costs have skyrocketed here in the Denver area. Boulder, once again, the minimum wage was $11.10. In Boulder now, it's $15.82. That's a 51% increase. Expenses are high for small businesses. And then you throw in some of the other things that the legislature and the people of Colorado have thrown on small businesses, businesses in general, whether it's the Family Medical Leave Act or numerous other things that the legislature have done. So really, small businesses are being hurt, and with that, I do have an amendment in mind. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment L to House Bill 1005 That a proper motion to the amendment Very good Members what this does and I know we had what seemed like a similar amendment for small businesses under 10 million. Well, really, my amendment deals with small businesses with less than 50 employees because, you know, there's a lot of small businesses out there that have 5 or 10 or 20, even 50 is considered a small business, and they certainly, most of those probably don't have $10 million in revenue. So this amendment protects small businesses from the disproportionate regulatory burdens. The bill expands collective bargaining requirements and alters the balance of labor relations across all employers, regardless of size. Smaller businesses often lack the administrative capacity to navigate the complex labor negotiations and compliance requirements. By creating a small business exemption, this amendment ensures that those regulatory obligations are scaled appropriately. So, you know, like I was just informing you, that labor costs have shot up dramatically over the last seven years. And I'm not sure, to be honest with you, if the minimum wage here in Colorado is not even increased more so than what we have here. So, you know, we always like to say small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that's probably true. The majority of jobs that are created are created by small businesses. And we really don't want Colorado. I think there's other statistics out there that will maybe be mentioned. But we don't want Colorado to become a state where employers, whether small, medium, or large, do not want to come to anymore. And the case in point is you look at the exodus of companies that are leaving California and moving to the south and other states. The exodus of companies that are leaving Illinois, which is a heavily unionized state. the companies that are leaving New York and New Jersey to go to Florida and elsewhere, which are also heavily unionized states. So all we're trying to do here with this amendment is protect those small businesses that are trying to plant some roots and grow and survive. So with that, members, I urge an aye vote on Amendment L-013.

Yes, Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, an attempt to exempt small businesses from this new law is just unacceptable. So a company that employs fewer than 50 employees, I mean, that's going to impact thousands upon thousands of Coloradans across the state. So when there are so many businesses that already willingly enter into agreements with their employees, some of them unionized, Some of them are small businesses, which is why we heard from a number of business owners about why this is a good policy to move forward. If there is something gone wrong where the workers in a company need to unionize, then we can't strip that right from them just because they happen to work for a smaller company that employs fewer employees than some other company. I strongly oppose this amendment. And I think that, you know, if you are in a business and it requires the employee, it requires you to employ human beings and you are unable to treat them with dignity and respect and pay them well perhaps you should not be in that business small or large So to exempt broad across the state a small business from having to comply with this new law that will make it easier for people to unionize does a disservice to thousands and thousands of workers across the state and we have to oppose this amendment.

That was a slight deviation, but we'll let it pass.

To Amendment L-013.

is that wages will increase. That then these mean business owners are going to be forced into paying their employees a living wage. And I submit to you that the characterization of business owners in the state of Colorado or in general is not realistic. because I know business owners in Castle Rock and Parker. I know them, and they value their employees, just as the good senator from Colorado Springs was talking about. They care about the well-being of their employees. But this is the thing, is if we see, and we've seen it, right? We've seen Starbucks employees in Denver unionize, and this happened. And there's been a hue and cry that Starbucks has had the gall to close those shops. Well, maybe it's because they can no longer make it pencil to keep the doors open. Their overhead has exceeded what they bringing in And in which case because Starbucks is run by some pretty smart people if they have a store that is losing money month after month after month they close the doors It makes sense. That's business. I don't want to put our small businesses into the position of having to decide whether they're going to close their doors and all of those employees no longer have a job. Or just what? What's their alternative? What's their alternative? Their alternative is that they're going to raise prices. And if you have enough of those small businesses raising their prices, that impacts the overall inflation level of the state of Colorado, which is already... Let me pull up the number because it's here. Our cost of living is one of the highest in the country. So we're going to make it worse? Is that what we want to do? I urge an aye vote on L-5-13.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of L-113, or sorry, 0-1-3. And the reason why is because one of these small businesses that had 31 employees was one that I worked for when I got out of the military in the 90s. and I just want to tell you that we did have a union rep come and talk to us and we would have to take a pay cut in order to become a union. So this livable wage myth is out there when you talk about residential electricians like we were. It's a different world when you're talking about commercial and residential, but I will tell you that we did have these people show up and we said no, but even if we were to go union back in those days, we would have had to take a huge pay cut because it's a different pay wage when you're wiring a house. So I think the thing about it is that if we really truly want to protect workers, then we would accept this amendment because it's a different world when you talk about those small businesses like what I work for. I would just ask for an aye vote because I lived this. This is my story. And I was, I mean, I've been an electrician for now 28 years, but to get my start, it was, I got paid quite a bit of money just to be an apprentice up in the Roaring Fork Valley, and I wired the houses up and down the valley. And it was a big deal, and our employer took very good care of us. So I ask for an aye vote on L013. Thank you for the discussion.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the amendment by our colleague from Colorado Springs. You know, he has always been a champion of small business, and I think, once again, he's stepping up to offer what I think is an excellent change to this legislation to help protect our small businesses. As he pointed out very accurately, a lot of people don't realize this, but the vast majority of new jobs that are created in Colorado, in this country, they come from small businesses You know everybody focuses on Fortune 500 companies and the big ones out there They often cutting the jobs for various reasons It's the small businesses that create the new jobs. And, you know, we had a lot of discussion, and I think it is a major issue, the growing wealth disparity in this country between people who have it and people who don't have it. And one of the ways we can work, you know, to close that gap is by encouraging people to start businesses. Starting a small business is a great track to get out there, be successful in the economy. It's a great track for women, for minorities, for immigrants. Get out there, start that small business, and equalize things. And you just put a law like this, you change the law like this and make it more difficult. One more thing to make it more difficult to start a small business or to succeed in a small business in this state. You know, I mentioned the Chamber of Commerce's recent study on the relocation tracker. I think this is one quote which is really right on point from a company that has left. Nikki McTague, president of Infinite Monkey Theorem, saying, we've explored every option to try to continue our legacy, but with the rising costs surrounding rent, inventory, and labor, there is no way for our small business to succeed despite our best efforts. And they're relocating to another state, shuttering their operations here in Colorado. And one of those things they talked about is the growing cost of labor. For a small business to have to be concerned with an issue like, you know, dealing with a union and dealing with more rules and regulations that come with that, you know, just having a union is one thing, But there are all sorts of compliance issues surrounding that for those businesses when you have that in place. And so you're just piling on one more thing on top of the taxes, on top of the regulations, on top of the costs of a state which is now considered to be the fourth most expensive state in the country to live in. And you can only imagine it's probably pretty high up there in terms of the cost of starting a small business. And so I think this is an excellent amendment, recognizes at least for 50 employees or less. Let's keep them out of a big change like this, not helpful to our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm here today. I want to talk about something that maybe we haven't talked about yet, and that's the people that are taking it upon themselves to do startup businesses, and they've got a good idea and want to put it out there amongst the market, and it starts to take traction. Those people are going to end up being the new employers as we move forward. They're going to be the ones that are building the businesses. They're going to be the ones that are in the process of expanding and doing the things that market-driven businesses do. and here we are, we're talking about workers, and I appreciate the fact that we need to take care of the worker. But we also ought to be thinking about the future employers, people that are investing their hard-earned money, their time, their effort, and, you know, like they say, blood, sweat, and tears. I'd like to take a little time to talk about the value of those kind of businesses in relationship to the future of Colorado. I think if we were to take a look back at the employers that are here today and that are thriving and growing, you would find that they had been one of those startups maybe 10 years ago. And today they are out there in the market, wielding market share and bringing those employees along with them to share in the benefits of those kind of endeavors. I think we should be thinking a little bit about our future, the bench, so to speak, if you want to play ball with it. Think about the bench. Who are we bringing in that's going to grow? Most of the time, that kind of industry or that kind of business or that kind of property, mental property, I'm missing the word right now, but that kind of effort is where we're headed. That's what our marketplace is doing today. So what I'm thinking about is can we look at some of these industries or these businesses, new companies, that are what you and I might call startups, or just getting the wind up under their wings and starting to say, you know, this might work. and you know in order to take a look back to those people I'd like to talk about and I do have an amendment here hang on just a second I have an amendment that might address some of those issues

Mr. Schopler, please read the title to Amendment L015. Amendment L015.

That's the proper motion to the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion on Amendment L015? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L015. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The no's have it, and Amendment L015 is lost. To the bill, Senator Brazil. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-7 to House Bill 1005. That's a proper motion to the amendment.

It allows any employee to refuse union representation and be exempt from paying union dues, agency fees, or any other form of payment to that union or that representative. the amendment ensures that workers have choice because I think that that's a really, really important thing from a business perspective and from a worker perspective that the bill itself, as we are looking at it removes the key guardrails of the Labor Peace Act which again has been in existence and successful in the state of Colorado for 82 years Employees could be required going forward to financially support a union even if they don't want to be represented, and that's not okay. Again, we're talking about, in general, 1% to 2% of that employee's salary being diverted from paying bills, making sure their kid can play soccer, buying groceries, and in the case of Colorado, apparently paying for their ever-increasing homeowners insurance and health insurance costs. So, members, I request an aye vote on this particular amendment, allowing employees to opt out of both representation and payment of union dues and agency fees, just ensures that no worker is compelled to fund or associate with a union against their will, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'm sure you're all aware that federal law actually prohibits or federal law says you can't be compelled to join a union you don't want to. You can't force anyone to join a union according to the federal law. It also says that when the union negotiates on behalf of the workers at the company, they must negotiate on behalf of all of the workers at the company. They can't get out of that. And it also says, because of that, that the federal law says all workers have to pitch in and pay for that. So this would be in direct conflict with existing federal law. I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Ms. Shocker, please read the title to Amendment L010. Amendment L010.

To the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion? Yes, Senator Danielson.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L010. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The no's have it, and Amendment L010 is lost. To the bill, seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1005. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Thank you. The ayes have it. House Bill 1005 is adopted.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1006 and the Education Committee report. To the Education Committee report.

In the Education Committee, we made some technical amendments, including defining rural campus and some other changes as requested by the Department of Higher Education. I ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to Amendment L014. Amendment L014.

To the amendment.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, question before is the adoption of Amendment L014 to House Bill 10. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And Amendment L014 is adopted.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the question before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1006. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1006 is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Schaffner. Senator Mullica.

To the Judiciary Committee report.

Aye. All opposed say no The ayes have it The Judiciary Report is adopted To the bill Senator Mullica Thank you Mr Chair Members House Bill 1312 addresses four distinct but related areas of law enforcement policy

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the question before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1312. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The ayes have it. And House Bill 1312 is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader.

Thank you. The motion for the body is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All the polls say no. The ayes have it, and the committee will rise and report. The Senate will come to order. Senator Exum.

April 30, 2026. Mr. President, the committee of the Holbeck's leave to report it has had under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof. It makes the following recommendation thereon. Senate Bill 138, as amended. Senate Bill 172 as amended. Pass on second reading in order to engrossed and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1005. House Bill 1006 as amended. House Bill 1312 as amended. Pass on second reading in order to revise and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage.

The motions of the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? There are no votes. Senators Frizzell, Rich, Pelton R., Baisley, Carson, Zamora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Pelton B, Bright, Liston, Catlin, Mr. Minority Leader. With a vote of 23 ayes, 12 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, committee of the whole report is adopted. Assembly of 138 is amended, 172 is amended, passed, second reading, order gross, place, count on third reading, the final passage, House vote 1005, 1006 is amended, 1312 is amended, to pass second reading. Order of Revised is placed to count for third reading and final passage. Rap God. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is lay over general order second reading of bills counted Friday, May 1st, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. General order second reading of bills counted later until Friday, May 1st, 2026. Consideration of House amendments to Senate bills. Mr. Schauffler, please use the title to Senate Bill 92.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Senate for discussion of motion, the Senate concur with House Amendment of Senate Bill 92. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 ayes, 0, noes, 0, absent, 0, excuse, that motion is adopted. Mr. Minority Leader.

Proper motion. Any no votes? Oh, you'd like to discuss.

Please, Mr. Minority Leader.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the repassage of Senate Bill 92. Are there any no votes? Senator Pelton B. Kirkmeyer. Rich. With a vote of 32 eyes, 3 no, 0 absent, and 0 excuse, Senate Bill 92 is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please ask Senator Pelton R. I apologize, Mr. Schauffler. Please ask Senator Pelton R. as a co-sponsor of 92. and Senator Catlin raised his hand as well and Senator Snyder. All right now consideration of the governor's appointments consent calendar Mr. Schaaf will please do the appointments listed on the consent calendar.

governor's appointment consent calendar which is sheldon smith of montrose for the colorado board of veterans affairs and janna lock of denver for the department of personal administration further discussion seen under motion is the confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar are there any no votes on the consent calendar with a vote of 35 i zero no zero abs zero excuse those appointments are confirmed consideration of conference committee reports mr schaffler please read the title of house bill 1084 house bill 1084 by representatives espinosa

senator weissman uh thank you mr president we move that the senate adopt the first report of the first conference committee on 1084. please tell us why uh so members you may remember when we heard the bill here we took a major amendment to cut out all impact to uh the ballot title uh the conference committee kept with that so uh the conference committee follows our work they're re-revised, we did an amendment to just clarify the impact of what's left of the bill for the

Thank you. We move for the repassage of 1084 as amended by the conference committee report.

Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Senator. Happy birthday to you.

Hey, we will be, sorry. Senate Finance will be meeting in SCR 357 15 minutes upon adjournment to hear SB 180 and SB 178.

Senator Amabile. The Joint Budget Committee might be meeting one more time today. Or not. I'm not sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Member of State Senate Health and Human Services Committee will be meeting. We're scheduled for 1.30. We'll be meeting 15 minutes upon adjournment of the upon adjournment committees in the old Supreme Court. We going to hear Senate Bill 100 House Bill 1314 House Bill 1336 House Bill 1347 House Bill 1069 House Bill 1227 and Senate Bill 167 that is not on the calendar but is being added to the calendar today for the record

Wow. Thank you, Mr. President. That's funny. The local government housing committee will meet 15 minutes upon the adjournment of the adjournment committees. And we will hear House Bill 1224, SCR 001, House Bill 1196, and House Bill 1308. And a little change in schedule, SCR 001 will go last on the calendar, and House Bill 1196 will go first. Thank you.

Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick announcement on adjournment in about 10 minutes. The Senate Business Labor and Technology Committee will meet in SCR 352 We have three items on the agenda Senate Bills 179 and 175 and House Bill 1324 Thank you so much Have a great day

Senator Pelton R. Thank you, Mr. President. These were handed out a few days ago, so you may have already cleaned them off your desk, but tomorrow is concrete day. They're going to come feed us out on the east lawn. It's supposed to be 60 degrees tomorrow, so it'll be a nice day to go have a burger. So tomorrow, concrete day at the Capitol. Still no Rocky Mountain oysters.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, we will be recessing to read bills across the desk. No need to return on that, Mr. President. I move the Senate recess until 1 p.m. today.