Review and Comment Hearing for Initiative #266, 267, 268 [Mar 19, 2026]

and then the control I did control start and this meeting is regards to 268 66, 67, 68. Alrighty. You end up losing track.

My name is Haroja Jawah, and I am with Legislative Council Staff.

I'm Richard Sweetman with the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

And Jesse Cudden, the same.

inalienable property. Does this accurately reflect your intent? Yes, ma'am. Now we'll go through the

What is the single subject of the proposed initiative? It wasn't going to be the personal property rights and then just kind of expand on what those personal property rights were. But, man, this is like version 27, I think, and I'm already on version 45. So I'd be lying to you if I said I had this particular bill memorized. Your guys' role in this has been instrumental on being able to craft further from here. So essentially, that was my intent back then is to have everything kind of wrapped up. Again, I kind of branched it off since then. But originally, that was my intent. And I'm looking at some of these just to jump a little bit ahead. Some of these things were unfortunately comments translated into legislation as I was using things. hey how do we do this and then it would go ahead and um bring in some of my terminology like number seven your guys just comment the number seven um on the terminology and the honeypot signatures that was a technical term versus like yeah but originally going back to there i apologize i'm adb as hell um yes it was just personal property and how that expands out um basically i realized that AI looks at us as we're mathematical formula. We're not anything other than that. And while you can't own privacy, you can own your mathematical formula. And when you're able to own your mathematical formula, that changes the entire landscape. Now you don't have the ability to have an AI go ahead and generate your image because they're not allowed to use that mathematical formula. They're not allowed to output it because you own it and you tokenize it. And if you tokenize it's encrypted. And so when you've got maybe a handful of sites that are able to generate AI anything, and so all of these different applications ask these core companies, hey, can you generate this image for me? Well, if these core companies are told by the state of Colorado that they just have to ask every day, hey, am I allowed to do this? It's just a real quick exchange of information between servers. And if the answer is no, then they're not allowed to generate that image. So I can no longer take a picture of you and throw you into whatever clothing I want to. That is now not capable. It's technically impossible because you told the companies you can't use this mathematical formula when you generate your image. So essentially, I hard locked the capability of being able to generate anybody in any compromising situation or any AI generation of any kind other than what they allow. That was the entire purpose of that particular bill to establish real privacy and literally a cure for deep fakes it's not just like hypothetical it's like it it would actually work i i verified it through a bunch of different sources it's it's sound and then when you realize you could do one thing then it's just kind of stacked you know what i mean one it was a domino effect i'm like oh you can do that wow it works in this particular aspect too, and then it just became an evolution. And so, I'm sorry, I'm talking a lot,

Ooh, this is good. Okay.

Same way that it did with the tobacco companies in the way that the tobacco companies were caught with their pants down as far as they were caught manufacturing a product that was addictive by design and then manufacturing out that advertising campaign towards the children. take that same concept we got the tech companies february of last month it came out during their court cases that they the addiction by design wasn't a bug it was a feature they did it on purpose so now all of a sudden you've got an entire industry which is exactly what you had in the 1990s that did exactly the same thing but an entirely different way so what you do instead of how many people we got here? Four million? All four million of us going, hey, wait a minute, U.S. triple damages. Now, all of a sudden, these companies are going to go, whoa, that can be kind of expensive when you got four million people that are trying to sue us because of these things that we've done. All right. Well, state of Colorado is offering you an olive branch. Maybe the other states can jump onto it too. Maybe it can become like an interstate thing, but we could be the start. Colorado's the start of a lot of things. We're kind of cool like that. But using the same concept, because they did illegal things exactly like the tobacco companies, then they could be considered exactly like the tobacco companies, and that's a mitigation of harm. All right.

I wasn't. I thought that if it was declared an emergency, it could have been considered like right then and there. But if that is not the case, that's not a hard thing to change.

Essentially, I wanted to say that your rights start now. that's that's what i was trying to go with is that your rights start now and we can build the infrastructure around those rights as we can go as we go along but by default you're not allowed to go ahead and generate my image until i tell you you can that's where i was shooting with that but i understand that there could be technical capabilities that you kind of got to phase

Oh, I took you guys' word and I made 33 individual initiatives that are all independent, but combined as a whole. So you may not get number 20, but you'll get everything else. Then you've got everything else minus number 20. So I took you guys' advice and I broke it down into 33 individual concepts. and then like a chapter index it's coming it's i'm literally just doing the last few phases of refining and it's coming but uh i took that into account one of those is to create that entity it's a public utility the other is a trust that the government state of colorado is entrusted to store the visual information of any ai or any camera that was supposed to go into ai they're the The air gap aspect happens at the encryption level of the state. So the state is busy encrypting this stuff, and the optics or the cameras are the input, and then the output is the shadow tokens that go out to everybody else. But everything builds upon itself as a model.

It wasn't. I didn't intend it. It was a technical term that's used to help describe the process of adding a little token into people's scraped data that just kind of flags as soon as it's scraped up. So that's kind of how it was.

Same thing. It was a strategy of grabbing all of the tech companies that have violated us and rope-a-doping them into this master settlement agreement.

There are people that kind of enforce the biomarkers or the honeypot signatures, if you will, that when something is triggered as an alarm, they're the enforcement mechanism of my measure. In other words, you've got two different types of enforcement in the next instance. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act, which is act, or Colorado Consumer Protection and Artificial Intelligence. I've been working with so many different names. I apologize. But the name that I ended up settling, C-A-M-P, I think it is, that's like a utility, and the trust is... You know, trust the state of Colorado. That way nobody can actually just confiscate your data. It belongs to the state of Colorado. But as far as the rope-a-dope thing, it was meant to rope-a-dope the – what's it called? Oh, dude, I am so sorry. I had an ADE moment there too. We were talking about ODL. Yeah, essentially it's the enforcement mechanism.

Okay, so this is actually two concepts put into one. It's my image. The question ends up being like two things in one. So you've got two different types of privileges for the spouse. When it comes to children, both parties have to be on board. You can't just have one spouse that says yes on one thing and then no on another when it comes to children's privacy rights, unless the court order says otherwise. But also – and this kind of goes around universally too – it also gives the – we're married today. The images that we may authorize AI to generate for us today may not be AI images that we want on our phones for each other tomorrow. Now, doing it, the mechanism that I had done it with the – locking out the mathematical formula from being generated, you can reverse engineer that. You can revoke your consent. And then that sends the generation back to the AI. And it says, hey, you need to redo this. This person is no longer authorizing their token. And it gives the generator of the image the authorization to change it into something else. So by revoking your consent, that means you no longer get to use my image in your art. Find something else. And so it protects the person whose image was used. and it allows anybody in any sort of category of relationship to be able to revoke their consent. It also keeps people from being able to use it as a retaliation. Like, you know, when you show other people your body or create a fake porn or anything like that towards somebody and it'll help, like, kids or anybody, like in high school, you know, from the boyfriend to, like, plastering it all over. It can help that, you know, or college or whatever. the technical cure for revenge porn. You guys have revenge porn. I couldn't say it, but revenge, like revenge smut. You've got revenge porn on the books. You've got voyeurism on the books, right? But you don't have generating an image of somebody under those same conditions as on the books because the computer generated it. It doesn't qualify as a crime. I fixed that too. So the current problem right now is that There is a distinction between victim no crime and computer generated porn There currently this like gray zone right now And unfortunately, I'm going to be blunt with you guys. I'm a sex offender. What happened like 10 years ago, I got drunk and I put my hands on somebody I should not put my hands on. And that put me down to the course of six years of sex therapy. But what I learned in there is that there are some people that have some major problems, some major problems. And for them to have this as a conduit, that's not optional. That's doing nothing but going to feed an urge that you don't need to be feeding. And there's a legal loophole for them to actually have access to this because no victim, no crime. Well, my legislation fixed that. I originally kind of went with the concept of, well, when you have stains, you don't have a victim either. no victim no crime but there was the intent and so then i just made it impossible for the ai to create it in the first place so i mean i started with one concept and then i just it incorporated a couple different things but i i fixed the sex offender that fixed the privacy issues that created like uh generated porn of anybody and you know what i mean like the irony is is amazing but um That being said, that's kind of how the veto power thing came into play is I may give you consent today, but you don't have it tomorrow, maybe. And if you do, it's because I said you could.

I think that there's a particular law in our books that allows that we're allowed to make laws and collect based upon where the terminal ends in Colorado. and I think I'm going with that approach. If we are here in the state of Colorado, then we have jurisdiction. And if we have jurisdiction, we can send you a bill. And if you don't want to pay that bill and you do any sort of business in the state of Colorado, we can revoke your right to take that or to do the business within the state of Colorado because you're not following our laws. And if you're not following our laws, that's cool, but you lost out on our market.

Okay, so no. Part of it is part of the master settlement agreement, and those are going to be reparations, so to speak. And I may have mistaken the wrong word, but mitigation. Essentially, this is all AI mitigation. There's a lot of damage that's being done by AI. And so this is to mitigate the charges or the damage of your image being generated without your consent.

You're absolutely right, and I have addressed that concern in future drafts.

Tossing it into the master settlement agreement, it's the same company. It's doing the same things. So you toss it in there, and then it's no longer a law that they're having to retroactively do. It's something that they're voluntarily doing so they don't get sued to oblivion.

No, I took all that into consideration, too, when I drafted up these other things. I really look forward to that meeting.

No, ma'am.

My name is Hirosa Jawara with Legislative Council Staff.

Richard Sweetman, Legislative Legal Services.

Proponent.

Section 140.105 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires the directors of the Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution. The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Directors of Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments intended to aid proponents in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of knowledge of the contents of the proposal. While this is a public meeting and members of the public are free to be here and listed in, the purpose is not to hear from members of the public, but to hear from the designated representatives of the proponents of the initiative and their council. Other persons are not permitted to comment. We will make sure that we understand your intent and your objectives in proposing the law or amendment. We hope that the statements and questions contained in our memorandum will provide a basis for discussion and understanding for your proposal. These are the purposes in the memorandum dated March 17 2026 The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes appear to be 1. Establish the Colorado Trust of Unique and Identifying Information as an air-gap decentralized storage and audit environment. 2. Create a triad review panel and a judicial cryptographic token system to oversee and authorize unmasking or access to protected data. 3. Mandate the implementation of a non-circumventable incident reporting system and the deployment of justice-rich kiosks within detention facilities to securely log and route incident reports. 4. Limit the use of item-level eligibility identifiers. 5. Require covered emergent automation systems to implement a black screen protocol that provides a hardware-level physical circuit break and disconnection capability. 6. Require two-step human verification before a covered entity can issue an adverse action based on an automated alert or shadow person output. 7. Establish an isolated diagnostic environment to evaluate and remediate covered automation systems subjected to a critical severance directive. Eight, mandate that correctional capital projects funded under the initiative achieve net annual energy neutrality and net annual worker neutrality. And nine, allocate collected fees into specific funds using an automated routing system. Do these statements accurately reflect your intent?

We still read them for the record, but you don't have to comment. Okay.

Yeah, that works. Fantastic. So the substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions. One single subject requirement, Article 5, Section 1, 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?

Okay. Number two, effective date. Proposed section four states that the initiative takes effect upon passage. However, article five, section one, four, eight, the Colorado constitution states that an approved initiative takes effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote by proclamation of the governor. Are the proponents aware of this constitutional default?

3. Unidentified entities and companion measures. The proposed initiative grants significant authority to the ODO, Office of Digital Oversight, and references enterprise mitigation revenue established under Article 20 of Title 24. A. Are these entities and statutes established in current Colorado law, or do they rely on the passage of a companion ballot measure?

B. If the intent is to create the ODO in this proposed initiative, you should consider adding language expressly creating the ODO in statute and placing it within a principal department of the executive branch of the government. C. Although the independent operability section claims no provision is conditioned on another measure, how will this initiative function practically if the ODO is never legally created? Good point. Okay, number four, triad review panel implementation. Proposed section 1010-105 creates a triad review panel consisting of a prosecutor, defense attorney, and magistrate designated by the chief judge of each judicial district. Directing the judicial branch to appoint members to a panel that authorizes data access may raise separation of powers concerns under Article III of the Colorado Constitution. Also, how will this panel be funded and staffed across all judicial districts?

Well, it depends on the manner in which they are appointed. I say it may raise constitutional questions. Just inviting you to comment.

Five, administrator rules and definitions. The proposed initiative references the administrator throughout and grants the administrator the authority to define terms and adopt rules. The proposed initiative also references a regional administrator and a program administrator. Who is the administrator and what is their role in comparison to a regional administrator or a program administrator?

Number six, appropriations. The appropriation note in the initiative states that no general fund appropriation is required because the ODO and the verification, accountability, and facility safety infrastructure established by the proposed initiative will be funded by enterprise mitigation revenues allocated from the CCPAME. However, the CCPAME is not created by the proposed initiative, so how will the initiative be funded if the CCPAME is not created?

B, if the intent is to finance the ODO with enterprise mitigation revenues, is the ODO then part of the enterprise? If not, what is the basis for using enterprise revenues to finance a separate government entity that is not part of the government-owned business of the enterprise?

Okay. C, if the proposed initiative is intended to be effective upon passage, how do you intend the startup costs for the ODO and the verification, accountability, and facility safety infrastructure to be financed, given that CCP AME enterprise revenue generated from fees would not be immediately

a phase in deployment. Seven, Fourth Amendment construction. Proposed section 1010-104 authorizes the state to use state-held mitigation custodial custody to reduce third party seizure risk and to require judicially supervised procedures for access. How does this language comport with existing legal requirements for compliance with a court-issued search warrant?

It's okay. All right. Extra territorial enforcement, number eight. The initiative mandates hash sentinel egress monitors and black screen protocols for covered entities that commercially deliver systems to Colorado residents Do the proponents anticipate that the state may need to defend against legal challenges under the Dormant Harms Clause of the Constitution if the state attempts to enforce these mandates on out-of-state operators?

no we're not gonna have questions we will now look at the technical comments would you like

account. Beautiful. Any further comments or remarks for the record? No, ma'am. With that, the hearing for Initiative 267 is complete. Finally, the proposed Initiative Measure 268 concerning enterprise governance and collection of automation fees and penalties. It is 1.40 p.m. March 19, 2026 in HCR 109. We will introduce ourselves for the record. I am Haroja Jawara with Legislative

Ben Galehouse. Yes, he could.

Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative

Yes, ma'am.

essentially it is the establishment of the utility and that is the economic engine essentially of the entire package it's where everybody's going to get the money from from all of the AI damage mitigation that it's you know trying to account for so I don't know this one I think this. Honestly, it's not going to matter because it's going to get revoked anyway. But I think it was just like the economic engine aspect of it. The creation of the Colorado Protection Automation Mitigation Enterprise. That's essentially basically it. And then how it establishes its authority and its fee structure.

Absolutely. I wouldn't have been able to do the 0% municipal loans otherwise. Well, no, I'm sorry. I've staged it out to 1%, 2%, and 3%. But in this particular version, I don't know if I had that in there. It's so hard to keep track of this. Like I said, it was version 27. I'm in version 45 now, so I've done 18 different changes structurally to this entire thing, and I'm trying to keep up. I apologize.

Well, the loans to the municipal government, for one. I don't know if it made it in this bill, but it definitely made it into subsequent bills. in order to help with the infrastructure challenges that AI is currently presenting with the state of Colorado. This helps to mitigate a lot of that. So if the buckets for a 0%, well, I think at this time it was either 0% or I should have been, but I forgot to get into this draft, and that's why I gave you the other one. But the original concept was to give cities and municipalities a 0% APR loan that they could build the infrastructure that they need in order to accommodate for these data centers and things like that and help mitigate a lot of this problem that we're currently having. And the way that a current data center works is that they're a power hog, they're an electric hog, and they generate a ton of heat. so you just capture that heat put it into a geothermal uh network underneath the city and all of a sudden you don't have to pay for streets to get plowed you don't have to pay for sidewalks to get plowed and if you do it right you can also establish it into people's homes so you can create a whole geothermal network based upon the exhaust heat of these data centers and that that exhaust heat could also do another thing it could generate its own power using a fluid that evaporates at a lower heat at lower heat evaporates at lower heat and thus allows the turbines to spin and if you would then apply a solar panel on top of that you're increasing the heat on top of that which allows it to spin even faster because the gas expands even faster, thus turning the turbine. So you can allow these data centers to become data parasites, to become an ecosystem. Now, you could take that same exact exhaust heap and you could collect water from the atmosphere around it. So you are taking the problems that the AI data centers are creating and you're transforming it into a network that creates heat and cooling for people too. This network can run in both ways. You run this underneath your streets and your streets act like a radiator during the winter or during the summertime. It allows the heat to find escape. So you can reduce everybody's heating and cooling costs on top of reducing the demand of the electricity from the data centers. So you turn these things from a parasite into a flipping ecosystem and you're doing it, doing everything that they're already doing. It's going to cost a lot of... The infrastructure should be paid for through it too. The water and the electricity that's... It's going to take a long time of course, like a lot of years I'm sure to introduce all of that, but eventually if it was to be done, it should pay for itself. And it creates an entire new industry for people to start a job with. Like, yeah.

I believe I had a safety mechanism that said that if it is like triggered that in court, then we go ahead and put it up to the voters. I tried to pre-arm this thing ahead of time. I don't know if that came out, But like this thing was expecting some challenges. And I tried to. I read tested the crud out of all of this. Like I threw all the I created I treated this like a computer program. All of it. I considered this object-oriented programming, but object-oriented lawmaking. I took concepts that I wanted, and then each one of these concepts was their own object, and they have their own class, and how do they fit with each other. And I broke down law into literally a computer program that, when challenged of single subjects, poof, I'm able to distribute it into 33 cohesive builds within a 24-hour period. I got my notifications yesterday and I've already made the adjustments. So like the way that the bill is currently structured, it was supposed to have certain things kind of kick in. And I realized that I would get pushback. So in this particular case, I had automatic structure switches. If the thing is considered to be a fee or an actual tax, okay, cool, put it up to the voters. Sorry, I went on a tangent. I totally did. That's my math.

I believe that's a good question, and I changed that later, so it's no longer relevant.

Well, that ended up being a concern, actually. I got rid of the whole amendment directive. my interpretation of the Supreme Court decision on our ballot initiative 158 was that I wasn't allowed to do that. So I withdrew that.

I'm going with the same concept of at the terminal. You know, you're doing business with us at the terminal. If you are not willing to call it our laws, that's cool, but you can't do business in Colorado.

I don't think this one would get you to get compromised with the master settlement agreement. I don't think he's got a point on this one. I don't think he does. Okay.

when they try to hide their information. So, they try to pretend like they're not doing something, but they actually are. Let me see if I can find my definition of ghostly.

I apologize. I don't know if you've always noticed, but I had a lot of definitions for a lot. I believe that's the terminology. It's...

We're mutated a lot since this particular draft. So I'm trying to hold on to things. All right. When a tech monopoly tries to avoid paying the automated mitigation charge by routing their AI inferences to an offshore subsidiary, claiming that the API-only status or fragmenting their data outputs to stay on the reporting thresholds. Okay, I understand.

So instead of Mr. Richard being like all of Mr. Richard's information, it chunks it out and makes it seem like it's not Mr. Richard, it's just parts of Mr. Richard, if that makes sense. It doesn't have to send all of the data about you at the same time. It can chunk it out. And when it's doing so, it's trying to pretend like you don't exist. It's not actually scraping you. It's only scraping bits and pieces of you. And so it doesn't count. Well, this is defining that and saying, no, it does count.

I think that the general – or the attorney general should have that option too. But it sues – the concept was is that the little guy, you and I, we don't have the money to go to the lawyer and say, hey, can you go ahead and sue this company for me? So it doesn't have to be these people, but it's an option because most of us don't have money. And if you think I should define that in there, that's a really good idea?

Okay. That's okay. Okay. That's very valid.

That's a good question, and I believe I did address it in further drafts. Yes. Yes, I do intend to arm it. It needs to, yes.

The proponents may consider adding language to this effect. That's a good idea. That's a very good idea.

I love it. I'm sorry. You're right.

I was originally thinking that I would need it for startup fees. so probably just to get the infrastructure going, but it should generate more than enough revenue on its own. My projections, the new fee structures that I've got now, is up to like $46 billion over 10 years. Like, this is going to fix so many problems within the Colorado state government, like budget issues, and the fact that I am fixing or financially backing programs that the state is having a hard time funding currently, Medicaid and CCPA, that would leave money from the budget to do other things. So this is a gift horse in the mouth for city municipalities. It will be when it's all said and done. For the state budget, for everybody. Like, there is nothing in here that hurts anybody, even the tech companies. Like they're currently in a predator mode and not realizing they're part of an ecosystem. And they got to just realize that when you price everybody out of being able to buy your stuff or because you take away their jobs and you don't give people money or take away the state's money because you take away their jobs, you guys lose income when you guys get hit twice. When someone loses their job, you've got to pay the safety nets and you don't get the state taxes from them anymore. So you guys are taking a double hit. This is meant to help mitigate that a bit across the entire state budget by fixing programs that you guys are currently having issues funding in the first place. So it kind of became a win-all. The tech companies get to have customers still, and they still have data that they can harvest off of us, and they just have to pay for it now. It's no longer a multi-trillion-dollar industry that we don't have a part of. it's refunding back into us and creating an ovid's amplifying economics it's no longer communism it's no longer capitalism it's the problem with capitalism is that greed greed greed greed and it's all about money the problem with communism is we could be doing the same job and i can be lazy as crap and we're gonna get the same amount of money and the government owns all this stuff. I created like a nice little middle ground that allows for economics and socialism to kind of, or capitalism and socialism to work as a partnership instead of one or the other. If you put everything together, it was a total accident. But before I knew it, I had like the world problems solved Maybe not all the world problems but I had a lot of AI problems solved and I didn even mean to do it Like it started off with privacy and it just kind of migrated Oh hey

Oh, fees. Fees? Fees. And it became about fees. And then before you knew it, you have an entire utility charging utility fees to fix the problems that AI is causing. And you just got this beautiful ecosystem that didn't exist until this time. I don't know. I'll shut up. You guys back.

That's a good note.

Startup costs and emergencies. Like, you know, pay the fund back, and then if you have some sort of catastrophic emergency where whatever fund didn't come through, well, I mean, you've got the option of pulling that 9.9% back. You don't want to touch that 10% because then you don't trigger the Tabor thing. Tabor's bad. So the process was pay it back, and then pull it if you need it and pay it back and pull it if you need it. But chances are you'll never need to pull it again. If this thing works the way that it's supposed to, once you get up and going, it's kind of like a perpetual motion at that point. It just keeps going.

I didn think about one But I think I guess putting a little bit of money back into the coffers wouldn hurt anybody That's a good point. Okay.

That's a good question. That's a really good question. I will have to find an answer. Finds, I'm sure.

I didn't have the money to begin with. I will have an answer for you in my next round.

Fair enough. Great.

No, ma'am.

I'm not sure if you...