Senate Judiciary [May 04, 2026]

Good afternoon, everybody. Senate Judiciary Committee will please come to order. Ms. Jensen, please start us off with a roll call.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Present.

Here.

Here. All right, everyone's present. we'll welcome Senator Pelton as a guest member of Judiciary for the day. There are three bills on our agenda this afternoon in this order. They are SB 176, HB 1276, followed by HB 1256. Apologies for the timing. Obviously, the committee has announced for 1.30, which makes certain assumptions about when floor work will conclude. Floor work ran significantly later than usual, given that we're in the last full week of the session. So as it happens, I am co-prime sponsoring the first two bills on the agenda, so Mr. Vice Chair will preside over those two parts of the hearing. In connection with that, I did want to announce some ground rules for how testimony on 176 will go. So given time pressures at the end of the session, we've invited both proponents and opponents to identify three panels of witnesses to speak to the various angles that they would like to have heard concerning the policy. So we'll do some alternating in fairness. A total of three panels will be called for each side, five or six witnesses on each panel based on what we've received from both sides. A total of approximately 17 folks will be able to be heard from on both sides using the same web form that you might have used to sign up. You can submit, if you'd like, written testimony that goes into the legislative record. Obviously, folks know how to reach all of us as individual senators as well, and folks have been availing of that opportunity up to this point. So in connection with that, we'll do the standard three minutes of opening comments per member of each panel. That is the standard for this and other committees. We'll then, once everybody on the panel has had a chance to make their initial comments, we'll invite ten minutes of Q&A from members of the committee to each panel. After witnesses have been heard from, we'll go to the amendment phase per usual and then final voting, and then we'll proceed to the next bill. With that, I'll come down here. Mr. Vice Chair will take over.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Perhaps it's fitting that the first bill that I presented before the legislature this year was Senate Bill 5 and the last bill I will present before the legislature and this committee will be Senate Bill 176 I want to begin by talking through some of the why of this measure We have witnessed many long-standing bedrock principles of rights within our Constitution. be stripped away, be trampled upon. And it begs the question, what is a right without a remedy? And how do we ensure that there are true mechanisms to ensure that those constitutional rights, when trampled upon by federal officials, that there is a mechanism and a procedure to hold those to account. Over the last several years, federal overreach has been rampant. You all know that I have dedicated my career long before I ever even thought of running for public office to defending and advancing immigrant rights here in the state of Colorado. For years, the tactics that were just rampant when it came to immigration enforcement officials is now being, for years, that those tactics were almost routine. And now what I fear, sadly, in what we are witnessing, is that those tactics are also being threatened to be deployed towards other communities as well. Right now, all those victims of violations of their constitutional rights are barred from bringing their claims to court. Colleagues, a right without a remedy is just not a right. And so what Senate Bill 176 seeks to do is to ensure that there is a mechanism here within state courts to bring those claims forward. I'm proud that Colorado is one of nearly two dozen states who have introduced legislation to hold these federal officials to account when they violate someone's constitutional rights. Just today, the state of Connecticut signed their iteration of the No Kings law into effect. Illinois and Vermont have also signed similar legislation. You will hear testimony from legal scholars, experts and with that I want to thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this policy. I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you. Bill sponsors, committee members, are there any questions for the bill sponsors? Senator Pelton.

Senator Gonzalez. Because if President Trump deploys ICE agents to polling places during the 2026 midterm elections, that would not constitute immigration enforcement.

This country grappled a lot with excessive immigration enforcement tactics throughout calendar year 2025. That is what begat SB 5 that had a defined term, civil immigration enforcement, violation of constitutional rights during which by any government official, to be clear, state, local, or federal, would give rise to a cause of action. The world continues to teach us things with every passing week. I believe it was March 31. There was an executive order out of Washington purporting to claim a lot of control over elections pending in this country later this year, notwithstanding the pretty clear language in Article 1 of the Constitution about who gets what authority. We saw a couple weeks ago an investigation that I would consider a kind of lawfare against the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization dedicated to civil rights with a long history. We saw a week or two ago an investigation announced into a former FBI director who served this country. Those instances were one particular organization or one particular individual. For that organization or that individual insert just about anybody else who might be disfavored under the current regime for any reason And then in constitutional terms, if I'm that person trying to vindicate my rights while I'm thinking about due process, depending on what's happening, I might be concerned about use of force if they had come to my house. I might be concerned about improper search and seizure, electronic or otherwise. We believe 5 is an important bill. It's the first bill in this committee. We're both deeply committed to getting it the rest of the way done. 176 reaches more conduct that we think is important to reach. Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. There are so many different examples that I believe that you'll hear about from proponents and witnesses to be able to more fully answer that question. What I have seen in my long experience, both as an organizer and now as an elected official, when it comes to immigration and customs enforcement agents in this moment, when it comes to our civil liberties, when it comes to surveillance of everyday Americans, regardless of their immigration status, we are increasingly seeing both immigration and customs enforcement agents and customs and border protection agents acting less as, in the process of civil immigration enforcement, squarely, and more acting as a federal police agency on behalf of the president's whims. That's why this is named the No Kings Act. It is to remind this federal administration that the Constitution applies to us all. And so I invite you to ask that question of proponents who can perhaps describe other instances that this could certainly play out in. And I will say that certainly the this has been for well over a decade now. When someone tells you who they are, believe them. And this president has made it extraordinarily clear what he would seek to use those immigration agents to enact. Thank you. Senator Hendrickson.

Senator Weissman. Thanks for the question, Senator. One thing that's not in the bill as an element of the action is what party is in control in D.C.? You know, Washington warned us against the formation of parties and factions, and if anything is supposed to be beyond party and beyond the whim of elections and swings, it's supposed to be the Constitution and the rights reserved, preserved to all of us by that document.

Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll start by answering the question narrowly. The assertion that a 1983 claim now has to be filed in federal court or always is filed in federal court is inaccurate. And I have begun a correspondence with nonpartisan staff about correcting that, if for no other reason than the legislative record. Plaintiff is always in charge of where he or she chooses to file. could be state court, could be federal. Because 1983 is a federal statutory claim, you now have a federal question such that you could remove, defendant could remove to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1331 if defendant wanted to. At any rate, I'm down the rabbit hole now. 1983 claims can be filed, have long been able to be filed in state court in the first instance at the election of the filing plaintiff. As to the rest of the fiscal note, which sort of documents a fear of liability, I mean no disrespect to nonpartisan staff, but I think that for the reasons that we went into in our opening, it is fundamentally not anchored to the legislative text or to our intent.

Yes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ariane Frosh, and I am policy counsel at the ACLU of Colorado. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB 176 today and urge your yes vote on this crucial effort to hold the federal government accountable for its egregious constitutional violations. In recent years, the federal government has attacked the constitutional rights of the queer community, pregnant people, immigrants, trans folks, religious minorities, protesters, voters, everyday Americans, and they've done so with impunity. That's because there is no legal mechanism to allow a lawsuit against an individual federal official, even if they violate the Constitution in the course of their duties. While Coloradans have long been able to hold state and local officials accountable for violations of the U.S. Constitution, they lack the same ability to sue federal officials. SB 176 closes that accountability gap by opening the courthouse doors for lawsuits against federal officers. This bill changes nothing, substantively or procedurally, for state and local officials. By mirroring the language of Section 42 U.S.C. 1983, the bill creates no new liability against these officials and no new questions of venue. Under 1983, Coloradans can and do pursue damages from state and local officials when they violate the Constitution. These lawsuits can be and are brought in both state and federal courts. And defendants in these lawsuits are entitled to raise immunity defenses, which SB 176 explicitly maintains. Congress passed Section 1983 following the Civil War to curtail the violations of state governments overrun with Klan members, thus insulating Americans from overreach of state government officials. This committee has the same opportunity to vindicate Coloradans' constitutional rights from an overreaching federal administration today. The state has a duty to enforce the Constitution, especially when the federal government fails to do so. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28, power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the federal government. If the people's rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. it may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the state governments will, in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority No one is above the Constitution not even federal officers Today I urge you to stand up against the federal government tyrannical violations and for the constitutional rights of your constituents. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Roberts, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Adam Sopko. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School, where my research and teaching focuses on state, local, and federal courts and judicial federalism. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In my remarks, I'd like to make two points. First, I'd like to address concerns that passing this bill will have unintended consequences for state and local actors. And second, I'd like to discuss how this bill would alter the remedial ecosystem for Coloradans. So in the first point, there are understandable concerns that passing 176 will expand liability for state and local law enforcement, but these concerns are unfounded. As we sit here today, a federal statute, as we've heard so far, 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, authorizes Coloradans to sue state and local officials for money damages for violating their federal constitutional rights. This federal cause of action also provides defendants with several immunities. Officers are generally immune from liability, so long as their conduct was not clearly established as unlawful at the time. Judges and prosecutors enjoy immunity as well. Notably, under 1983, state prosecutors are absolutely immune when performing their traditional advocacy functions in their capacity as government lawyers. 176 provides defendants with the very same shield state and local officers enjoy under 1983. Subsection 4 says explicitly that in lawsuits brought under 176, defendants may, quote, may assert a defense of absolute or qualified immunity to the same extent as a person sued, unquote, under 1983. This is an incorporation clause. This is very familiar to the statutory code here in Colorado. It's a state law incorporating federal law. The tax code, for example, incorporates provisions and sections of federal tax law. This means that for purposes of 176, the protections already available to state and local law enforcement under federal law will persist as a matter of state law. That means it's of no moment whether federal qualified immunity binds state courts or not. Just as the statute avails plaintiffs with a cause of action as a matter of state law, it also avails defendants with immunity as a matter of state law. But even if none of this is true, that is, if subsection 4 was deleted from the bill, or even if the bill said explicitly there are no immunities available to state and local law enforcement, it's in no way clear that that regime would meaningfully frustrate law enforcement. About five years ago, the same body passed SB 217, which expressly abrogated qualifying immunity. While it was being considered here in the State House, law enforcement advanced very similar arguments about the implications of reducing or narrowing or eliminating these immunities. A recent empirical study demonstrates none of those concerns have manifested. Open records requests to law enforcement agencies statewide here in Colorado demonstrate SB 217's elimination of qualified immunity defenses have not resulted in increased court filings. They have not imposed increased costs via settlements or judgments on local governments. They have not caused recruitment or retention issues, nor have they seemingly altered enforcement tactics. So this is all to say that there are evidence-based reasons to be skeptical of arguments concerning immunities. In reality, SB 176 expressly provides defendants with the same immunities currently available under 1983. If that what the bill does not do my second point focuses on what it would do Your time has expired We go to the next witness online Could we please have Zach Hedden

Travis Brunner. chair roberts members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of sb 176 my name is travis bruner i'm a proud graduate of the university of colorado law school and i work for an organization called protect democracy united where we work to defend the rule of law and democracy more generally we've been working to support courageous legislatures like this one across the country and passing laws like this that will hold federal officials accountable. I'm going to use my testimony time to read into the record a letter that you all received on behalf of over 160 former Department of Justice attorneys in support of the bill. It was delivered on April 27th. Dear members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the undersigned are more than 160 lawyers who previously worked within the United States Department of Justice, including seven former U.S. attorneys. We are deeply troubled by unlawful

Thank you to the sponsors, Weissman and Gonzalez, for bringing this bill forward. My name is Michael Neal. I am coming actually solely to testify on behalf of myself, although I am a member of Colorado People's Alliance and Colorado People's Action. We were certainly concerned that a formal group sign-on might interfere with support of the next bill on the calendar, 1276. but I think we can chew, bowl gum, and then walk at the same time. So I am standing in support. And I standing in support not just because of the immigration disasters we have seen both here in Colorado in places like Aurora and across the nation but because of what I fear could be the case We've heard mention of potential voting irregularities and ice coming to voting centers. I also worry that some of our really progressive laws around disability and around disability opportunity could draw enough fire. We already know that the IDEA Education Act enforcers in D.C., most of them have been released and let go. So I can easily see the next step being the targeting of some of our Greek Colorado laws from federal government. Again, do I know that that's going to happen? I don't. But I can easily see that as the next step in what this federal government might do to ensure compliance with its own priorities rather than with what might be equal protection priorities that we see here quite so broadly in Colorado. And so not only for voting rights activists, but for folks with disabilities that have clawed for 40 years, climbed the stairs to get into the Capitol when it was not accessible, gotten onto buses and chained themselves because those were not accessible. I could easily see where those battles would unfortunately perhaps have to be refought. And I would ask that we pass 176 as a remedy if in those battles for fighting that our citizens are attacked from a federal level by federal officers or even compliant state officers. So I think that this is a positive step forward, and I ask for an aye vote on SB 176. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First question is to the gentleman from Maine. If the FBI surveilled and executed warrantless search for abortion seekers in Maine, would those Mainers have protections under Maine's law to be able to seek a civil remedy for that warrantless action?

Thank you for your question. My name is Zach Hyden again. The law in Maine applies to any person, a state official or a federal official, who violates rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And obviously the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Constitution. So that could be something where people could invoke the main Civil Rights Act, whether it's done by a federal official or a state official.

Ms. Frosch.

Other questions? Speaking of the main case, I have a question for Mr. Hayden. So the case that happened with regards to arresting this individual, bringing him to Massachusetts, and then releasing him, I think you said that a lawsuit has been filed. What's the current status of that lawsuit? Have the federal officials asserted any immunity defenses or anything like that? How is that playing out?

Thank you. And then, Professor Sopko, you noted that currently Coloradans can bring 1983 lawsuits against state officials in state and federal courts and that immunity for law enforcement, prosecutors, and other actors exists for state actors. how will this play out with regards to immunity and defenses by the federal actors? Won't the same thing just happen and all of these lawsuits will be dismissed or not move forward to that immunity?

So what you're saying is it would take many years and many cases for us to get to a place of settled case law if this new bill passes, both at the state level for state actors and for federal actors? Assuming people...

Mr. Chair, may I answer? Yes, Mrs. Frosch.

And for either of you at the table, that leads to the question then is, if things are pretty well settled at the state level for state actors as far as the ability to seek remedies for constitutional violations, why not limit this bill to federal actors? I think we've clearly established through the introduction that this is about federal actors. Why do we have a bill in front of us that is not just about federal actors? Professor?

I guess my question is, you all have established that we have the current protections in place, that plaintiffs in Colorado have remedies against state actors already. But we're trying to figure out what to do about federal officials. Why not tailor the bill to federal officials? And then almost everybody who's here to testify in opposition to the bill wouldn't need to be opposed to the bill. Ms. Frosch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further questions for this panel, thank you all so much for your time and testimony this afternoon. We are going to switch to an opposition panel. DA John Walsh DA Alexis King Emily Tofte Nesteval Ashley Jellison Commissioner Rachel Zenzinger and Mayor Lauren Simpson we might have to pull a chair up to the table alright Good afternoon. Thanks everybody for your patience. Whoever would like to begin, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and then your three minutes will start.

Thank you. DA Walsh.

Ms. Tofte-Nestavall, please go ahead.

respectfully urge a no vote today. Thank you. Commissioner Zenzinger. Chair and members of

Thank you. Mayor Simpson.

vote no on this bill. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for this panel? Senator? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we do have somebody online. Ms. Jellison, I apologize. We'll go to you next

Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, questions for this panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Mayor, I was really interested in what you said about public testimony before city council. That's something that we have dealt with here. We just had a case that's been working its way through the federal courts. Courts have decided that this is a case specifically about a bill last year and the enforcement of rules of decorum that this body has set. And the courts have routinely sided with the state in that suit, resting on a large body of precedent for that. And I know that there are cases of other city councils from around the country and other local boards that have heard similar First Amendment cases as well. is there any reason to believe that all of the precedent in those cases, and especially the 1983 specific cases that have arisen out of 42 U.S.C. 1983, in the exact example that you describe, would somehow go away at the state level? No, sir. So let me be clear. To begin, I'm not a lawyer. However, I picked that example very particularly because it does have very strong case precedent on it. And obviously, I run my chambers. I have had to gavel down people who don't want to give up the time, et cetera. And I have full confidence, based off the guidance of my city attorneys, that I have the ability to do that. Rather, it was my next point was the point of bringing up such a ridiculous example. The fact that we would have to defend such a case at all to begin with, the fact that we would have to spend attorney's times, we would have, the courts would have to spend times, etc. Yes, it would be tossed out. However what we will see is this sort of barrage of new case law As I believe somebody on the previous panel so noted it will take years of sorting through all of this Make no mistake this legislation is only limited by the imagination of our most creative constituents I have some very creative constituents, as do you, sir. And I believe quite a few would try it just because they would be testing their luck. The fact that we would have to defend it at all or settle because that's cheaper, again, it's the unattended consequence, and we would see a significant barrage across all sorts of measures. The First Amendment right is just a simple example of one I know I would win, but I shouldn't have to fight it to begin with. Senator Henderson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Mayor, I will cede the point on the creativity. I'm well aware of the creativity that exists. I guess what I'm really, really confused about is that we do have, but this is not new case law. This exists at the federal level for over 100 years, over 150 years. There's an extraordinary amount of precedence in this place. And so I guess I'm confused on how we're creating brand new case law where there is a new state court versus the federal court, but I don't see that precedent going away. And to that point, I guess to you, Madam Mayor, and to, because I'm thinking particularly of local governments and Commissioner Zenzinger as well, is there a language that you would like to see to see the preserving of existing state and local immunities and the existing 1983 procedures clarified clarify to ensure that that is mirrored exactly in the state process. Thank you for that question, Senator. Considering I'm on a panel with some very talented attorneys, I will defer to Mr. Walsh, who is more familiar on this case law than I am. Mr. Chair, so if I may say, one of the problems with this law is that while it includes the reference to immunity as if it were a 1983 case, It does not include references to all the body of federal law that influences how 1983 cases actually get litigated. And I'll give you one specific example. There is a federal law called the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the PLRA, that imposes a requirement that someone who is in custody first must exhaust administrative remedies before they can file a suit under 1983. This law does not incorporate the PLRA or a variety of other federal statutes that also govern the procedure for how 1983 cases are litigated. And even if, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court of Colorado found the PLRA applied, we would be spending years litigating these issues to determine the scope of the applicability of federal law. And I note that on the prior panel, the professor from the University of Colorado Law School acknowledged there would be years of litigation sorting out the exact meaning of this law as incorporated here in this bill into state law. Follow-up, Senator Hendricks. Thank you for that, Attorney Walsh. And so I guess that's very helpful. is there language that would help codify to your understanding those existing processes and procedures? DA Walsh. So thank you. Here is my response to you That kind of language and that kind of complexity is not something we are going to be able to deal with effectively in the last few days of the legislative session And I would also note, going back to my earlier testimony, if I thought that there was a chance that this bill would effectively impose civil liability on federal agents, I would view it differently as to whether it was worth that. I don't believe it will. I think it is clear that, regrettably, we don't at the state level have the ability to impose liability of this kind. Given that fact, any kind of corrective action taken on the scope of liability on state and local officials strikes me as an awful lot of effort for something that won't end up accomplishing the goals of the bill. Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. D.A. Walsh, I'd like you to expand on that a little bit. the state courts under this new law have to follow the SCOTUS case law on 1983. In other words, why is this new if 1983 has been around so long, and won't Colorado just follow the laws given immunity to DAs like SCOTUS has? DA Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Pelton. I think the concern that we've got, which is a serious one, is that we will be litigating the exact scope of this law and the extent of federal law applying here for years. And I say that the reason I bring up the fact that there's a separate statute, not a 1983 statute, but a separate statute that imposes additional requirements, that's because the federal government has learned the need to constrain the scope of Section 1983 to avoid the sort of litigation that I think everyone on this panel fears and unfortunately is pretty confident would be unleashed on state and local officials under this bill. Senator Belton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. DA Walsh, I know how it works in the 13 judicial. I don't know how it works in your judicial. But I'm going to guess that the money you get is going to be given by your commissioners or city council, correct? City council. City council. You're in charge of that budget. It's not like you get extra money every year. So this is going to be a very hard decision for you to make on your budget if this law goes into effect, correct? That's correct, Senator and the Chair. The issue that I would point out, there was some discussion earlier of the fiscal note being a million dollars. A single lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend effectively. We don't get represented by the city attorney of Denver. We have to hire outside counsel to defend ourselves. And even when we win, we still are out those litigation costs. So I have to say it would only take two or three lawsuits. even that we ultimately won because they were unfounded to get to a million dollars just for the DA's office in Denver. That would be ten positions in my office I would have to hold vacant. That's why we're here. That's why you hear the passion in all of our voices and our concerns here. One follow-up, Senator Pell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this next question is for Commissioner Zinzinger. Welcome back. So my question for you is, especially being a brand-new commissioner, and a commissioner that got elected into an area that had a budget crisis and then you just got some new money, so you still have budget issues, but you still got some new money. How would this affect your budget to your DA? Because you're going to be in charge of how much money your DA gets, so how's that going to affect you? Commissioner. I've got my DA right here. And it's not just what it would cost the DA. We're talking all county employees, our social workers, our firefighters, any number of exposure. The idea that this bill won't increase legal exposure for our employees doesn't match reality. Jefferson County is currently defending 19 separate federal lawsuits with approximately 100 named Jeffco-related defendants. Each lawsuit names the county, agencies, and employees in both their official and personal capacities. Even with strong immunity law behind us, every claim against each named defendant still requires time-consuming legal defense, and creating a new undefined avenue to sue will only increase the situations where our employees end up in the crosshairs. Thank you. All right, Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. D.A. Walsh, Section 2, Sub, Section 2 of Section 2, Sub C, what exactly does that lay out there for us? Yes, sir. It's page 3, line 5. D.A. Walsh. Forgive me. Just so that I'm sure I'm on the same page, Could you read the text so I believe I have it in front of me? Sure. Yes, sir. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the defendant for defending any claims the court finds. Frivolous. Sorry. End of sentence. Yes. Yes. What exactly does that lay out for us, sir? It indicates that a defendant could attempt to recover reasonable costs and fees if the court found the claim to be frivolous. I will say that in many, many of the cases that we're talking about, any judgment would be uncollectible or not fully collectible in practice and would require further litigation to try to collect. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, maybe we dialogue for just one moment. Oh, sure. Yes, you may dialogue. Just why exactly is that, to your point of what you said there in terms of it would be difficult to recover that? Why is that? Oftentimes, and I can only speak to the way 1983 cases are sometimes brought, and having filed plaintiff-side cases when I was in private practice, oftentimes the people who are bringing those cases are not in a position to pay substantial, they simply don't have the assets and the ability to pay the attorney's fees and costs that might be associated with a lawsuit. Okay, and attorneys, having been on the prosecution side in private practice yourself, attorneys typically screen for that, right, saying this might be a frivolous suit. We also have other protections outside of this law here saying for frivolous suits you can recover any expenses. And that already covers you all, yes? A couple, if I may, dialogue. Yes, Mr. Chair. My experience has been that good attorneys do screen, as you're describing, but we also get a lot of lawsuits that don't have a lot of merit to them and may even be, as this provision states, frivolous. The difficulty is we still have to defend a frivolous lawsuit, and we are highly unlikely, even with this provision, to actually be able to collect the dollars to recoup the money we spent Are the attorneys themselves at stake for I would not read this provision as saying that the attorneys themselves are the provision that you've called out. How about the other provision that's already in standing law? I would tell you it's highly, highly unusual, and usually where you see a violation of the rules resulting in some sort of a fine against an attorney, it doesn't recoup the entire amount. Okay, and last question, sir. Thank you for talking to me about this. How many damages have you or any other DA been required to pay out to satisfy a judgment in a 1983 case? I am not aware of the DA's office having to pay out damages in a 1983 case to date, but this is a new law, and it imposes, I would note, potentially unlimited liability that we'll be litigating. As I said earlier, even if we win every one of those lawsuits, the cost of that litigation and higher insurance costs will impact our office. Thank you. All right. We have reached the time on this panel, but we'll go to Senator Doherty and then if Senator Hendrickson still has a question, but we do need to move off of this panel. Senator Doherty. Thank you. And I just had a follow-up. And I think what we're getting at is whether you believe that the clause regarding attorney's that we were just talking about would have any actual deterrent effect, practically speaking, in the filing of frivolous lawsuits? DA Walsh. In practice, I doubt that it would have any significant deterrent effect. It would have some, perhaps, but I don't think that we would see a major change in the litigation as a result. In practice. All right. Thank you. And seeing no further questions, thank you all so much to this panel. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to continue with an opposition panel, another opposition panel. Matt Buchner. Kylie Justice. Chris Noller. Allie Morgan online. Philip Qualman online. And Sheriff Tyler Brown. Good afternoon, everyone. Whoever here at the table would like to begin, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and then your three minutes will begin. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Matt Buechner, and I am here today on behalf of the Colorado Hospital Association in an opposed position on Senate Bill 26-176. CHA represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems across our state and strongly supports the protection of constitutional rights, accountability for unlawful conduct, and meaningful access to justice. However, we must respectfully oppose this bill as introduced due to potential unintended consequences for Colorado hospitals, health care workers, and the patients we serve. While this bill would preserve the conceptual guardrails found in its federal counterpart, Section 1983, the details may not be preserved. The scope of these protections would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the state level, and this bill would open the door to expensive, frivolous litigation. Hospitals and clinicians are not theoretical actors under this bill. They would be directly and routinely affected. For example a patient is brought to a public hospital emergency department during a mental health crisis Under existing law clinicians may place that patient on a 72 involuntary mental health hold to prevent imminent harm Under this bill, that patient could later allege that the hold violated their constitutional rights and sue the hospital and individual clinicians as state actors. Regardless of the fact, the hold was triggered due to clinical judgment that this was the best course of action for the patient's safety. Even when hospital staff follow statutory requirements, clinical standards, and act in good faith to protect patient safety, those frontline decisions could be litigated as constitutional violations with personal liability exposure for physicians, nurses, and administrators. The risk is not limited to behavioral health. Similar claims could arise in emergency treatment of incarcerated patients, care provided under court order or protective custody, triage decisions made during public health emergencies, mandatory reporting or compliance with state directives. The result will be increased litigation, higher insurance costs, defensive medicine, and greater workforce hesitation, particularly in emergency departments and hospitals that are already stretched thin. Additionally, rural and public hospitals, those most likely to be considered state actors, would be disproportionately impacted. Importantly, existing legal remedies already exist. Federal courts provide a well-developed framework for constitutional claims, including decades of precedent to finding immunity standards. This bill would create parallel duplicative litigation without clear guardrails, increasing costs without improving patient outcomes or access to justice. Colorado hospitals remain committed to civil rights, patient dignity, and accountability. But this bill, as written, risks undermining care delivery at the bedside while increasing costs across the health care system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CHA respectfully urges the committee to vote no on this bill to protect patients and providers alike. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kylie Justice, and I'm an attorney and a civil litigator for the city of Arvada. I am here today on behalf of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police to respectfully ask that you oppose Senate Bill 26176. I practice in this area, representing everyone from the streets manager to police officers. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the intent behind this bill. But good intentions do not guarantee workable outcomes. And here, the legal reality is far more complicated for local and government officials than it is for the federal agents. I want to highlight two particular concerns I have. First is the jurisdictional uncertainty that this bill poses. Federal court jurisdiction is not guaranteed in these cases. As the Tenth Circuit has recently explained, these claims are often fact-specific, and they will not hear claims unless they are purely legal questions, even if they involve the U.S. Constitution. These cases are normally very fact-specific. And we could spend months or even years litigating where this case should be heard in state versus federal court. If the federal courts decline jurisdiction, these cases will fall to Colorado's already overburdened state courts. Our state judges handle nearly three times the caseload of their federal counterparts. Judicial leadership from the state of Colorado came to the General Assembly this year and warned that the system is stretched to its limits, with judges reporting that they have insufficient time to address civil cases as it is now This bill will inject complex constitutional litigation into that system resulting in longer delays and higher costs for taxpayers in litigating these cases The second concern I have is the potential risk of expanded liability. From the bill's text, it is unclear what constitutes a person and whether or not a public entity or a chief in their official capacity can be sued under this law. It's further unclear that if you can sue a public entity or chief in their official capacity, what standard should be applied? This bill, currently in federal court, these claims are guided by Monell versus the Department of Social Services. It is a high bar and is guided by decades of precedent. But in the state court, it is unclear what standard will they apply and whether courts will have capacity for the early resolution that federal courts currently have. At best, there will be years of litigation about what the proper standard is for public entity liability under SB 176. At worst, it will lead to increased liability for public entities. Either way, the taxpayers will pay the cost and will have decreased services in the meantime. Whether or not this law will hold federal officials accountable, no one knows, but the impact to taxpayers will be immediate. Thank you. Sheriff. Mr. Chair, thank you. Members of the committee, my name is Tyler Brown and I'm the Sheriff of Arapahoe County and the past President of County Sheriffs of Colorado, representing all 64 County Sheriffs across our amazing state. Thank you for the opportunity to speak out in opposition of Senate Bill 26-176. I appear before you not in opposition to accountability, but from a practical perspective. What this bill will mean for patrol operations, our jails, our courts, and the taxpayers we serve. Public policy cannot be built on might happens. It must be built on clarity, practicality, and a clear understanding of real-world consequences. As sheriff, my responsibility is not to rhetoric. It is to reality, the safety of our communities, the stability of our institutions, and the rule of law. Senate Bill 26-176 creates a new pathway for litigation under state law that lacks the guardrails found in existing federal and state laws. As you have heard from different testimony today, these are significant. I have three primary concerns. First is ambiguity of law. This law introduces uncertainty where clarity is essential. Law enforcement and local governments depend on clarity defined in their authority. When laws are vague, they create confusion. And in public safety, confusion leads to hesitation, inconsistency, and risks things not being taken care of in an appropriate manner. And we have seen this before. Ambiguity in prior state legislation created real challenges and contributed to a decline in those entering our profession. And we are only now recovering from those impacts. Second, disruption of governance. Our system works because of our coordination between local, state, and federal partners. This bill risks disrupting that balance without offering a workable alternative. Gaps in governance become vulnerabilities in public safety. Third, the message it sends. Legislation framed around broad distrust of authority can erode public confidence in the institution people rely on in times of crisis. Trust is hard to build and easy to lose. Let's be clear. Accountability and transparency matter. No one is above the law. Those principles are already embedded in our Constitution and in the systems we operate under at the local level each and every day. But this bill does not strengthen accountability in a meaningful way. It introduces uncertainty, risk fragmentation, and prioritizes symbolism over substance. Every day, I see deputies make split-second decisions to protect lives and serve their communities. They need clarity, consistency, and support from the laws we pass, not ambiguity. If the goal is to improve accountability, I welcome those conversations, but this bill as written does not achieve it. Public policy should solve problems, not create new ones. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you a no vote on Senate Bill 26-176. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Chief, please go ahead. Good afternoon, Committee Chair and members of the committee. I'm Chris Noller, Chief of Police and Deputy Mayor for the City of Pueblo. I come before you today as President of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, representing over 120 chiefs and the Mayor of Pueblo in opposition to Senate Bill 26-176. The stated purpose of this bill is to hold federal government employees accountable in Colorado courts for violations of the U.S. Constitution. Colorado chiefs absolutely believe in accountability, but this bill goes too far and is unlikely to achieve its stated outcome in our opinion. Holding federal agents accountable through this mechanism is untested and highly likely to be ruled unconstitutional. It will have to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court and is unlikely to be upheld against federal agents, but will be used against state actors. There are already multiple mechanisms to hold state law enforcement and other government employees accountable through Senate Bill 2217 and USC 1983. This bill will cause municipalities to have to fight to remove cases to federal court, which may or may not happen, and as a result will increase the discovery burden on our agencies and municipalities. Another problem with this legislation is it is another attack on the criminal justice profession. Since 2020, our profession has struggled to recruit and retain police officers. And just last week, I had an officer resign to pursue law enforcement in another state because he no longer wanted to work under the threat of our current system in Colorado to our police officers. And this is happening in agencies across the state. I think that says something. Law enforcement is one of the few professions that requires people to put a gun on and a bulletproof vest every day and confront some of the most violent people in society. Just Saturday in Pueblo, Colorado, a Colorado State trooper was drugged 20 feet by a DUI driver who was trying to escape a traffic stop. And last year, four Pueblo police officers were shot in the line of duty. Yet the thing that scares our officers more is the threat of suit, the inability to do our jobs, and the attacks on them by our community when we can't address crime, mental health, and other issues. This bill will make it even harder because officers will see it as another attack and will go elsewhere to do the job if they even decide to do it at all. And it's not just officers who suffer this result. The ability to hire and retain prosecutors, likewise, is affected by these laws. Our DA's office in Pueblo is below 50% staffing and has been since 2021. If the goal is to go after federal agents or employees, is the cost to local county and or state employees worth this effort when most likely it won't be upheld as constitutional and the federal government will remove the case to federal court, thereby nullifying the intent and causing increased exposure to all government employees in the state. There's an old saying for this type of thinking, biting your nose off to spite your face. Thank you, and I urge your no vote on Senate Bill 176. Thank you Ms Morgan online Good evening Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Allie Morgan and I serve as the policy director for the Colorado Association of Local Public Health Officials or CALFO We represent Colorado's 56 local governmental public health agencies, or LPHAs. We respectfully urge your no vote on Senate Bill 176. Local public health officials are on the front lines of protecting community health and safety. Every day, these individuals make time-sensitive, evidence-based decisions that affect entire communities, often under intense public scrutiny and in the midst of rapidly changing situations. This bill would significantly increase the risk that those good-faith decisions could result in personal civil liability. That risk is not theoretical. It would directly affect core public health functions. For example, LPHAs routinely organize and administer vaccines in schools, clinics, and community settings. Staff must determine eligibility, prioritize limited supply during outbreaks, and respond to evolving state and federal guidance. Under this bill, those decisions could later be reframed as alleged constitutional violations, exposing individual nurses, medical directors, and administrators to lawsuits. The same is true for disease outbreaks. Whether responding to measles, influenza, or a future novel virus, public health officials may need to issue isolation guidance, coordinate contact tracing, or make urgent recommendations to protect people. These are complex decisions that attempt to balance individual rights with community safety. Senate Bill 176 would incentivize officials to hesitate, delay, or avoid action out of fear of personal liability. And in smaller and rural counties, the impact would be even more severe. We wonder how this might have played out if the law were in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond emergency response, this bill would divert limited public health resources into legal defense and insurance costs. This would come on top of budget cuts at the local, state, and federal levels that are already making it challenging for LPHAs to provide critical community services. These practices save lives, and the changes proposed in this bill risk injuries and deaths. We absolutely share the goal of accountability, but Senate Bill 176 exposes local public servants acting in good faith. And that is a risk Colorado's public health system and the public cannot afford. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. And Superintendent Qualman. You're on mute, or we can't hear you. can't hear you on either we'll see if we can do anything on our end sorry all right superintendent if you are able to or have time and you want to try to restart your Zoom and get back on, we can try to get you up on the next panel, but understand if you have time constraints too. So with that, committee will go to questions for anybody on this panel. Senator Henriksen.

I guess Chief, Chief Noller,

Chief Nuller. I think there's a couple of different issues, and one of the other panelists may be able to elucidate on this a little bit more thoroughly, but one of the issues in the Monell claims is, and we've seen this in Senate Bill 217 suits as well, where the Colorado courts don't have the time to do a review when there is a motion for summary judgment on a case and insist that the case moves forward. In the federal courts, what happens is the judges have the time to actually review the facts of the case that are submitted through discovery on a summary judgment filing and will oftentimes rule in favor of the defendant based on that discovery. or if the discovery doesn't support the claim for a motion for summary judgment, the case will then move forward. But what we're seeing in the state court is that that review is not taking place. And there's a case in particular I can't talk about right now where that's exactly what has happened. We have presented evidence in another case that has already been ruled on that's very similar to ours, and the court is not willing to do that summary review and is insisting that the case moves forward. What that causes is the increased cost to our municipal government in order to defend these cases, and it also results in a prolonged case. So I don't know if somebody else has more to add to that, but that would be my response, sir. All right. Any other questions for this panel? Ms. Justice, did you have something to add? All right. Yes. I would just add, I think that is very likely that individual officers will continue to get sued under 1321-131 SB 217, given the fact that there is no qualified immunity there. The concern really comes from these official capacity claims that will be filed under this new law for chiefs of police in their official capacity or police departments or city of Arvada, city as a whole. and the concern there is can you do that? It's not clear under this law. What is a person? And if you can do that, is the standard the same as in Monell and the progeny of cases that have followed or did the state legislature pass this with the intent that it be something different and the litigation will likely go back and forth between federal and state court while those issues are decided, which will be costly. Senator Henson.

Any other questions for this panel?

Mr. Buechner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are instances. You can just pull it closer to you if you need to. Yeah. I think you turned it off. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are instances where hospitals contract with state agencies or local governments, for instance, providing services to patients who are currently in a jail. There are other instances whereby a hospital may be a public institution and would be subject to this law.

Mr. Buechner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based on what I've heard from our members, lawsuits are not common. However, based on what we have heard from previous panelists, as well as discussion with our members, we are concerned that this bill would open the door to frivolous lawsuits and increase legal costs at a time when seven to eight out of 10 hospitals are facing margins that are currently unsustainable. Did you want to hear from Ms. Morgan?

Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question. I will preface this by saying that I am no legal expert, but I think as an example of how we worry that this could impact local public health agencies in Colorado is if you think, for example, about vaccine administration during an outbreak, local public health officials have to move quickly to prioritize limited doses. They have to do things like determine which populations may receive priority access to limited supplies. And under this bill, we worry that those decisions could end up being challenged as violations for individuals who feel that they were not prioritized or otherwise treated unfairly. And so we worry that this could incentivize either slower decision making or a default to more of a one size fits all approach to decrease the possibility of that initial liability.

Okay, seeing no further questions for this panel, thank you all for your time and patience into this evening. Okay, we're going to switch back to proponents. Ian Kalamowicz, Annie Martinez, Allie Belknap, Isaac Bevis, Naomi Andre, Steven Gladstone remote. And Ben DiNardo remote. Okay. I think that fills out our panel. We'll start here in person. Whoever at the table would like to begin, please go ahead and introduce yourself, and then your three minutes will start. Mr. Chair and members of the committee,

Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll switch to online. Mr. Gladstone, we'll start with you. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you. I welcome any questions. Thank you. Mr. DiNardo.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. And then Ms. Martinez.

Thank you so much. Okay, committee, are there any questions for anyone on this panel? I had a question for the first witness that testified, Mr. Bevis. You brought up the actions of ICE. I'm wondering if you've been following Senate Bill 5 and whether that might address some of the concerns that you and others have.

Okay, thank you. All right, see no further questions. Thanks everybody for your time and testimony this evening. We appreciate it. Okay. We're going to do our final opposition panel, which will then be followed by our final proponent panel. So online, Anne Terry, District Attorney Amy Padden. We're going to give Superintendent Phil Qualman another try if he's still with us. Commissioner Matt Schur, remote. Jocelyn Reimer. And Kim Sorrells. You're here for Ms. Terry, I'm assuming, yes. All right. Here at the table, whoever would like to be in, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and then your testimony will begin.

Thank you. Ma'am. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. We'll go online. DA Padden and is that Ms. Terry as well? Please go ahead.

Thank you so much. And did you want to go next, ma'am?

applied to federal actors If as the sponsors claim the bill creates no additional liability for state and local employees then a court could view it as discriminating against federal employees in violation of the Supremacy Clause But if the bill does create new liability for state and local employees, then the sponsor's assurances are incorrect. Both simply cannot be true. We appreciate the goal behind this legislation, but the bill in its current form creates legal confusion, exposes public servants to new risk and is ultimately bad policy. I want to address a couple of the questions by the committee. You're asking about public health and how they could be implicated. The Vandermeer sued Governor Polis, CDPHE, Jefferson County, including the JCPH Public Health Department and its executive director as a result of public health orders entered during COVID. They asserted First Amendment takings and due process claims. Ultimately, we won, but not after spending a significant amount of time and taxpayer dollars on those claims. And I also want to add that the bill is unbalanced as it relates to attorney's fees. Plaintiffs gets attorney's fees for a prevailing party, but defendants only if it's frivolous. Courts are very reluctant to impose or find a claim frivolous. Thank you. I urge a vote. Thank you. Commissioner Schur, welcome. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Eagle County Commissioner Matt Schur. I serve as vice chair of counties and commissioners acting together, and I'm here today in opposition on behalf of both CCAT and Colorado counties, incorporated through, though my specific comments are just on behalf of CCAT. CCAT shares the sponsor's concerns about the real and present threat from federal authority, and we strongly support the goals of protecting constitutional rights and ensuring accountability when those rights are violated. As county commissioners, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and we don't view that accountability as optional. It is fundamental to public service. Our concerns here are not about avoiding responsibility, but rather a need to ensure that any system of accountability is clear, consistent, and workable for local governments serving their communities. While the bill may not explicitly create new categories of liability, it is very likely to increase the number of claims filed by expanding access to state courts and removing some of the procedural constraints that exist in federal cases. For counties, that means increased claims volume and higher insurance premiums, potential reductions in coverage, and significantly higher legal defense costs. It also means staff time diverted away from delivering essential services. The state's own fiscal analysis reflects this, projecting increased litigation, staffing needs, and settlement costs. There are still open questions about whether this approach will achieve its intended goal of deterring misconduct, particularly by federal actors. At the same time, it raises concerns about unintended impacts on state and local governments. Taken together, these unresolved questions make it difficult to fully assess the long-term implications of the bill. At the end of the day, counties are trying to strike a careful balance, upholding constitutional rights while maintaining the capacity to serve our communities effectively. Increased legal exposure, especially in a system with unresolved uncertainties, can strain that balance. For these reasons, and given the number of outstanding concerns, CCAT is not able to support Senate Bill 176 as drafted. That said, we remain committed to the shared goal behind this bill and are open to continued dialogue and approaches that can strengthen accountability while also providing the clarity and stability local governments need to do their jobs. We are also hopeful that the sponsors and legislature will more directly address the implied and explicit threats from the administration to interfere in upcoming elections. We have seen our liberties threatened. If we lose the integrity of our elections, we may see our democracy destroyed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, Superintendent Qualman, let's see if your sound is working. Looks like you're still on mute on our end. How about now? There we go. We can hear you. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this second opportunity to speak today. I'm Phil Quillman, superintendent of Eagle County School District. I'm here today representing Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance, Colorado Association of School Boards, and the Colorado School District Self-Insurance Pool. The fact that I'm representing four of the most influential advocacy groups in K-12 speaks to how concerning this bill is among educators. This bill creates a broad personal liability for routine school decisions, and in the long run, it's harmful to students. This bill allows any public official to be personally sued for decisions around curriculum, student discipline, library materials, and school safety. These aren't rare or extreme situations. These are the daily responsibilities of running a school system. This bill does not fill a gap in the law. Federal law already allows lawsuits for constitutional violations. What this bill does is create a parallel system in state court, broader in scope, easier to access, while exposing individuals and organizations to costly legal proceedings. The real problem is what this does to decision making. In schools, we ask adults and leaders to act quickly and responsibly when students are at risk. But this bill makes every decision a potential personal legal risk. Consider this scenario. A school is faced with a student that's made a credible threat. If a principal acts and suspends that student, they risk being sued personally for violating that student's rights. If they don't act and something happens, they face personal liability under the Claire Davis School Safety Act. There's no safe decision. There's no correct path, only risk. It's an impossible predicament for our school leaders. And the impact is real. We'll see hesitation. We'll see slower response time, more defensive decision making. And in schools, hesitation puts students at risk. We'll also see rising legal costs, legal defense, insurance premiums, and risk management. And those dollars will then not be going to classrooms, not going to teachers, and not going to students. And I would ask you to consider the broader context of this bill. We're already facing a workforce crisis in public education. People are leaving this profession in droves. Fewer students are enrolling in teacher preparation programs, and fewer individuals are willing to step into leadership roles, including serving on local school boards. And this bill would further intensify those challenges at a time when the system can least afford it. It makes already difficult job even even riskier and does not improve outcomes for students. This bill creates fear where we need judgment, hesitation, where we need action and liability, where we need leadership. For the sake of Colorado students, I respectfully ask for a no vote on Senate Bill 176. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And then committee, we did have two folks signed up in an amend position, so I've asked them to come up to be a part of this panel. So whoever would like to be in here at the table please go ahead Thank you Mr Chair and to the committee And we did change our position to opposition So my name is Lisey Owen I a civil rights lawyer based in Denver and I represent victims of state and corporate violence. And I want to be clear, I do the work. I represent the people that this bill purports to protect every day in state and federal courts, everywhere from the Denver District Court to the United States Supreme Court. I am frustrated that I have to sit up here and testify. I have lawsuits against half the people that testified against this bill today. I represent people who were hurt by half the people who have been here today. And yet, I have to come and testify in opposition to this bill because it is ill-conceived, poorly planned, and it is codifying an immunity defense that is the reason that every single law enforcement official, prosecutor, Department of Human Services worker feels entitled to come in here and testify about how it's not fair that they should be held accountable when they break the law. You are codifying, you're proposing to codify an immunity defense that the Colorado Supreme Court abolished in 1971. The reason that you all are saying that this bill isn't a big deal is because of the immunity defense. Because if the immunity defenses weren't in there, it would actually do something for people. There's no time. I have to tell you, I ran against John Walsh for Denver District Attorney. I know him very well. I respect his comments immensely today. He's got it right. What he testified to is absolutely correct. This law is going nowhere. No one's being held accountable under this bill. Instead, what's going to happen is people are going to walk into my office and they're going to say, I heard that I can hold government officials accountable now. I'm going to have to tell them, I'm so sorry. It's not true. We're going to spend years in litigation. we're going to be asking Colorado courts that are already taking a year or more to rule on dispositive motions to help you, and they're not going to do it. I am so frustrated, and I'm sorry for my tone, but this is something, the qualified and absolute immunity doctrines are doctrines created by judges that have been spoken down on by United States Supreme Court justices, scholars from every political party, every governmental accountability spectrum that you could possibly imagine. You're calling this the No Kings Act, qualified in absolute immunity, our sovereign immunity. They come from the king himself. This is so ill-conceived, and there is no time to fix it. I agree with Mr. Walsh on that point. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Thank you. My name is Ana Martinez, and I am also an attorney, and I'm a plaintiff's attorney. I've been practicing law for 20 years, and I am one of the founders of Abogadas Colorado. One of the purposes of our organization is that we often represent folks who seek Spanish-speaking attorneys in our community because of the lack of access to lawyers. The reason I'm here to testify is on my own behalf as a practitioner in Colorado. I want to highlight that something that Senator Gonzalez said is what is a right without a remedy I am very confused because Senate Bill 26005 disclaims the immunity expressly in the text of the bill at Section 2 Paragraph 3 That disclaimer is key to making that bill work. My clients come to me all the time. I have been to that ICE detention facility. I've heard the stories of people whose doors have been knocked down. people illegally pulled over in traffic stops. That bill would actually give a remedy against those ICE agents because they cannot raise immunity defenses. However, in contrast to that, with 26-176, my issue isn't with the goal of the bill, unlike other people who are opposed to that legislation. I do believe governmental actors should be held accountable for constitutional violations against citizens. If you are abiding by the Constitution, you've got nothing to worry about. My problem with this bill is that it literally codifies absolute immunity and qualified immunity into the text of the bill. And so while it's tracking a 1983 action, it's codifying the worst part about litigating it. It's codifying the immunities that make it impossible to hold actors responsible in courts. That's the work I do every day. That's the work my colleague does every day. We're in these courts asking to hold these actors accountable, and we were told over and over, qualified immunity, get out of here. So when I'm looking at how to fix this bill, it requires more than just removing the immunity. You would have to expressly disclaim it. I would like to point out under Mesa v. California, which is 489 U.S. 121, a 1989 decision, that federal actors are allowed to remove cases when they have a qualified immunity defense. Not a single one of these cases is ever going to be litigated in state court, ever. No 1983 case has ever been litigated in state court. If you have a defense of immunity, you get to remove to federal court. And then what's going to apply are federal immunity defenses. Your case is gone and out the door. This bill does not achieve what it purports to achieve because it codified the immunity defenses. So my opposition isn't really about the bill itself and what it purports to do. My issue is it's giving the immunity defense codification by law, which the federal courts will require us for them to analyze to then kick your case out of court. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Committee questions for this panel. Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Scherr, I just asked Commissioner Zinzinger a question about what this would do to the budget of your district attorney because you are in charge of their budget. You're in charge of allocating money to the budget of your district attorney. What would this do to hurt the budget or have to make you put more money in there or whatever to other parts of your county? Commissioner Scherr. Thank you for the question, Senator. I can't speak specifically to the budget except to say that our district attorney has said that they expect they would be asking for more budget to cover the costs that this drives. and our own attorneys have looked at the evidence about insurance and suggested that it would likely drive up our insurance costs as well that is outside the DA's budget, that would be the county's budget. Senator Wallace. Thank you Mr Chair For our civil rights attorneys here I curious if we removed the qualified immunity provision of this legislation would you support it Probably not. And to be honest with you, thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you for the question. I, this is something that requires a significant amount of discussion. And I, you know, I don't think that there's time to fix the problems because, again, as Mr. Walsh testified, you know, I mean, that is a person who successfully defended torture when he was the United States attorney using this network of legal strategies. So it's a very, very complicated issue, and I would need to understand exactly how all of the sort of federal doctrines that have prevented people from getting remedies would work inside of this bill, and that's a complicated question. So it's certainly, so no, I mean, the answer is no, I wouldn't support it. Senator Willis. Even if given time within, I know we're in the constraints of the, I assume that's what you mean by time. Right, I know we're in the constraints of the last few days, but given time to discuss it and look through those things, you don't think that there's any path towards getting you to a yes on this legislation? It would require a significant number of amendments, not just silence on the immunity issue. And I think that was your question, was if you just removed the immunity. I don't think that that's sufficient. Okay, thank you. Oh, and I'm sorry. It's okay. For myself, this is Ana Martinez. I believe that if there was a disclaimer of immunity, that parallel 2026-005, I would absolutely support that type of bill. I think the disclaimer is required. Silence is what Maine had. You had the guy from Maine and the ACLU testify. Their bill is just completely silent. What would be applicable is the court's analysis on Egbert v. Bull, which is 596 U.S. 482, a 2022 decision that says that establishing causes of action and immunities is a legislative endeavor rather than the job of the federal judiciary, except for when the legislature is silent. And so I think without the disclaimer, it gives the courts the ability to read in qualified immunity. So my issue for myself has to do with that immunity language specifically. Okay. And so just to follow up, your point is that you think the main law will be equally unsuccessful as far as delivering results for plaintiffs because it's silent? Correct. They have the ability to read in the immunities. The disclaimer, that actually is the strongest way to keep those immunities out and to keep the bill viable. Thank you. Senator Hendrickson? Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is about jurisdiction. So setting aside your position on the legislation as it exists. One of the things that we have heard throughout is that because of the supremacy clause, that this bill is doomed to failure if it were enacted into law. To the civil rights attorneys on the panel, I would be interested in hearing your take on that argument about the supremacy clause and the ability for state courts to try these cases. Ms. Owen? So, sorry, you're asking whether the law would be struck down as unconstitutional because state legislatures can't make laws regulating the constitutionality of federal conduct. Am I understanding the question correctly? Yes, because of the supremacy clause, yes. I genuinely don't know. I really don't answer. Ms. Martinez? So... What has been discussed is something called intergovernmental immunity. That's sort of what prompted them to probably add the immunity clause into this legislation. And so that doctrine, it bars state laws that either regulate the United States directly or discriminates against federal governments, the federal government actors, or those with whom it deals. So that narrative of immunity or intergovernmental immunity comes from McCullough v. Maryland, which is one of the oldest cases in the United States Supreme Court history under Justice John Marshall. The issue is intergovernmental immunity would not bar what is kind of a converse 1983 legislation that I think this bill wants to be, and that's because it furthers the United States constitutional goals. It doesn't impose, for instance, additional or state-based obligations onto federal officials. That's the key. All it's doing is saying, you already have to take an oath of office to follow the Constitution. This just gives a remedy for when you don't do it, but it's not adding new duties onto federal officers. And so in that situation, that intergovernmental immunity argument or the supremacy clause argument wouldn't apply. There is a case that's currently in the Ninth Circuit that distinguishes this. So there has been legislation in the state of Washington, for instance, to keep planes that are carrying folks, detainees from ICE, from place to place, from landing and using airstrips in the state of Washington. And in that case, the immunity clause you're referring to has what's called an anti-discrimination provision. And the Ninth Circuit has held in that case, if the state purports to focus only on federal conduct, such as in that situation, that it can be struck down as violative of the intergovernmental immunity. And so I think this is what prompted this conversation of why they are trying to get this bill in with the immunity is to make it viable. I think we have to be better, and we have to give ourselves a chance to make the courts do that work for people who want to defeat this legislation. Your job is to create the remedy in the legislation. All these arguments about whether we have immunity or not, whether we're going to have a million frivolous lawsuits or not, those are proper arguments before the court, and to let the courts address those issues. But yes, I do believe that though intergovernmental immunity is a doctrine that can be reviewed, I don't think that it would be struck down if there is no focus in this bill on any immunities whatsoever and rather a plain disclaimer as it applies to all actors that are covered by the legislation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all so much for your testimony this evening. We appreciate you being here late with us. Thanks to everybody online, too. All right. We will go now to our final panel of supporters. Megan Forbes, Anaya Robinson, Beau Tremetier, Elizabeth Mabus, and I'm going to go Selena Lopez. Andrew Barton or Dylan Rankin. Okay. I've got two folks here in person. Whoever at the table would like to start. Mr. Robinson. Thank you Mr Robinson Thank you Mr Robinson Thank you Mr like to start Mr Robinson Thank you Mr Chair and committee members I an I Robinson I'm the public policy director at the ACLU of Colorado, but I will be reading a letter on behalf of Lawrence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb, the University Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law. I reviewed the final draft as of April 12, 2026 of the pending bill concerning state court remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights. I'm confident that, as drafted, the proposed legislation is fully consistent with the United States Constitution and fits comfortably within the federal system, including the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. Although other scholars have pursued this issue more assiduously than I have, beginning in the late 1980s, it has been clear to me ever since first studying the matter closely in the 1970s that the Supremacy Clause makes only constitutionally authorized federal actions supreme, which means that state law may impose liability for legal and equitable relief whenever federal officers act outside of federal constitutional boundaries. So long as the liability scheme established by a state does not discriminate against federal officials in particular, but applies across the board to anyone who deprives another person, under color of law, of rights or privileges secured by the United States Constitution. The Senate bill you have under your consideration plainly meets that requirement. The need for such a law at the state level has become clearer every year as the U.S. Supreme Court keeps narrowing the reach of both 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. 6 unknown named FBI agents 403 U.S. 388 in 1971. Not on the theory that the Constitution itself requires such narrowing, but solely as a matter of statutory interpretation and of the court's views about the proper relationship between the federal judiciary and Congress, views that in no way can strain legislative authority. I would myself favor limiting the defenses of absolute or qualified immunity that your bill preserves, and I am convinced that the immunity federal courts have grafted until 1983 is not mandatory. But wanting the law to go even further is not a reason to oppose it. If you succeed in Colorado in providing this increasingly necessary state judicial remedy against federal constitutional violations that would otherwise go unaddressed, you will have advanced the cause of accountability, strengthened the rule of law, and created a model that other states can emulate, thereby bolstering the system of checks and balances that is from the nation's origins been a cornerstone of our constitutional republic. Lawrence H. Tribe and the university affiliation provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this statement are solely mine as a constitutional scholar. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Beau Trimethier. I'm a Boulder County resident and I'm a council at Protect Democracy United. My organization works with local, state, and congressional partners all around the country to defend the rule of law and our constitutional rights from federal overreach. I'd be happy to answer any questions on removal as to why this bill is carefully designed to survive court challenges, why it could actually be enforced against federal agents. I'd like to use my three minutes here to instead state plainly that if this bill did the things that opponents of it said it would do, I wouldn't be here urging you to support it. In fact, I'd be on the other side. I'd be on another panel urging you to amend or to reject the proposal. And that is because a healthy and robust federalism is one of the most important checks we have against the federal government with a disdain for the rule of law and our constitutional rights. Hollowing out our state and local budgets or forcing our state and local officials to spend all their time swatting away frivolous lawsuits would be a terrible development for those of us who want to protect our democracy. This bill doesn't do those unhelpful things. I here because this bill strengthens not weakens state and local power to protect our people This bill shows that our states do have the power to check federal abuses to deter bad conduct and to demand accountability That is why Vermont and Connecticut, just this past week, each passed virtually identical bills. And that is why a number of other states are advancing similar bills as we speak. Those bills make clear, as does this one, that existing rules and immunities for state and local officials under 1983 will continue to apply. In those states, federal officers will have to think twice before they violate the Constitution. If this legislature declines to advance this bill, we are knowingly denying our friends and neighbors this critical tool to protect against federal abuses. In fact, state and local leaders very likely could be among the first plaintiffs to use a bill like this. The mayor of New York was violently arrested and faced vindictive criminal charges as punishment for trying to observe conditions in a local ICE facility. He's trying to sue ICE officials, but regrettably, his case is all but doomed because New Jersey doesn't have a law like this on the books. So much of the debate here today has focused on hypothetical claims that the sky will fall if this bill becomes law. But I'd close here with a reminder. The sky is falling. Federal agents are murdering Americans and ripping apart families with impunity. Federal funding is being stripped from universities as punishment for protected speech. Perceived opponents of the administration, both the famous and ordinary folks alike, are facing political prosecutions simply for standing up for our democracy. If that weren't enough, federal leaders are promising to interfere in the fall elections. Of course, there is no single solution for Colorado to fully protect against the corruption and violence coming out of Washington, but the No Kings Act is a critical start. Thank you, sir. Megan Forbes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill. My name is Megan Forbes, and I'm Senior Legislative Counsel at the Institute for Justice. We are a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to protect individual liberties. I want to start by offering a few examples of the types of problems that this bill responds to. Right now, if a federal official goes into your house without a warrant, trespasses on your land, takes away a legal firearm, retaliates against you for exercising your right to free speech or religion, beats you or even kills you, there's not much you or your family could do to protect your rights. You cannot sue them in most state courts, and you cannot sue them in federal courts. It's wrong, and it's squarely within the state's right to open the courthouse doors for people to sue for damages for constitutional violations. I want to briefly address a few concerns that have been raised. First, this bill will not lead to a flood of lawsuits. Other states already allow similar claims, as has been mentioned, and they've not seen an explosion in litigation. These laws have operated on the books for years without overwhelming courts. New Mexico was mentioned earlier, but New Mexico actually waived qualified immunity as a defense. So it's not a good comparison since immunity defenses remain available under this bill, which would continue to prevent litigation. second it will not open the door to new frivolous lawsuits against state and local officials state and local officials of all kinds can already be sued under section 1983 and courts already dismiss frivolous cases this bill doesn change that If lawsuits are not happening under Section 1983 there no reason to think they suddenly happen here This bill also doesn't create an untested legal theory. While it's new as applied to federal officials, it explicitly states that defenses under Section 1983 can be asserted to the same extent in these lawsuits, including immunity defenses. This is a clear directive for courts and commonly shields government actors, including prosecutors and government employees from liability. And that's for better or for worse. These cases would still be difficult to win because of immunity defenses, but in our view, it's a step in the right direction and better than not being able to sue at all. Finally, this bill does not violate the Supremacy Clause. The Westfall Act permits this type of claim and has already been mentioned this bill strengthens federal law by upholding the constitution. In closing, this bill is about making sure constitutional rights are enforceable in Colorado. I urge the committee to support this bill and to affirm the state's role in protecting people's constitutional rights. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Forbes. Ms. Mavis, please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Mavis, and I'm an attorney here representing myself. Previously, I served in the Colorado Attorney General's Criminal Appellate Division and the Governor's Office of Legal Counsel. I am here in support of this bill. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall warned that the government cannot be called a government of laws if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested right. And put more simply, and as I know you have already heard today, there is no right without a remedy. When the government itself violates individuals' rights, it is especially important that we have a remedy available. We have seen with our own eyes that federal officials are routinely and violently violating our constitutional rights, seemingly without any consequences, breaking down and breaking apart our most important rights, the ones that keep us and make us free. The First Amendment's right to free speech, the Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal officials are acting above the law because without a remedy, they functionally are. This bill provides a way to seek justice against federal officials that violate our constitutional rights. It does not create new substantive law. Instead, it simply allows for the use of state law to enforce existing federal rights. There is no expansion of liability. State officials are already liable under federal law for these violations, and the unintended consequences that have been discussed, the potential cases that have been mentioned today, can already be brought in federal court. It has, and most importantly, it has never been a lawful exercise of state, local, or federal power to violate the U.S. Constitution. There is truly only one group of people who would have expanded liability, and that would be federal officials. You are being asked to weigh the possibility that someone might bring a claim in state court that they can already bring in federal court against the very real and very current danger that a federal officer shoots and kills a Coloradan cannot be held accountable. I'd like to emphasize what one of my professors has said, Lawrence Tribe, that the bill advances the cause of accountability and strengthens the rule of law. I'm going to end with some history because I think that as with everything we do and that y'all do, especially as lawmakers, You exist within a historical context. As you know, this bill is called a Converse 1983 law after the federal statute, 42 USC 1983 or the Klan Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act. It was its aim was to provide a remedy to black Americans for violations of their rights by violent state actors in the wake of the Civil War. It was part of the still unfulfilled promise of reconstruction, a promise that we as a country tried to honor with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 60s. At a moment when federal courts and the federal government are destroying these fundamental pieces of the civil rights legislation, it is critical that state governments step forward. I urge a yes vote. Thank you. And Dylan Rankin.

Thank you, Mr. Rankin. Selena Lopez?

All right, committee questions for this panel. Senator Hendrickson.

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Tremontier.

I wanted to ask, I think, Ms. Forbes, assuming you were listening to the panel right before you and the two civil rights attorneys who commented that the bill is currently written wouldn't really have any impact on plaintiffs' claims because of the immunity that already exists. Do you have any comment on that? Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question.

When you say open the courthouse door, do you mean only for federal officials or would you agree that the arguments from the opponents that it's opening up state and local officials to more liability.

All right. Thank you, everybody, for your testimony and for joining us this evening. With that, we have reached the end of our witness testimony phase, and I am going to close the witness testimony phase. Senator Weissman, amendments.

Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Senator Weissman, wrap-up comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Wallace.

Senator Doherty?

And so I will be a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the sponsors. I think we've had a good discussion here today. You know, we've got a whole bunch, we've got the proponents saying this doesn't change much of anything. We've got the opponents saying it changes a whole lot of things. I think what will happen at the end of the day, and the reason, certainly main reason I'm opposed to the bill at this point, is I think we're just going to end up with a lot of litigation costs, defense costs, insurance costs, settlements costs. And these are all public governmental entities. So at the end of the day, the taxpayers are just going to end up paying out a lot of money, and I don't think we're going to accomplish much of anything with it. So I'm going to be opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Senators Carson.

Doherty.

Henriksen.

Helton B.

Wallace.

Weissman.

Mr. Chair.

I move for the to postpone indefinitely by reverse roll call.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, Committee. I am really excited to be presenting House Bill 1256 today. It's just a really good common sense measure. So the problem is that people come home without ID and vital documents once they're released from Department of Corrections. There are already programs for ID and gate money, $100, but they're not being applied comprehensively. The eligibility criteria excludes too many people. So this is tweaking the program to make sure that everything is happening on time and eligibility barriers are removed. So everyone coming home gets gate money, $100. There's no exclusions. And it requires comprehensive reporting from DOC to ensure that this is getting done. These first few hours, 72 hours, are really critical to successful reentry. GATE MONEY and an ID are key to stability in that time. An ID is essential to employment, housing, health care, anything that you need to start or restart your life on day one. in the first few days after being released from prison means transportation food hygiene housing other essentials And I want to address the budget and cost of this For the past five years the DOC has underspent their gate money budget by They have money available now. The estimated additional cost of providing everyone with gate money is $300,000. And that's about half or 3,000 people a year that are released. This is a cost-saving investment. $100 is a lot less than a year of incarceration, which is about $58,000 a year. Not to mention the strain and the cost to local communities when people are not prepared to come home. The ID and vital documents program exists, and it simply needs to focus on obtaining IDs when necessary and doing this work long enough before release. There's no extra cost. and I think this I love this bill because I really believe in second chances and believe that once you've paid your dues we should do everything we can to support you getting back into the system and being as productive as you hope to be and I know I am chaired, I don't know if any of you have ever heard of the Women's Bean Project but it's a wonderful program and I served as chair of that program and on committees and as part of the board for several years. And we heard so many stories about how difficult we make it for people to come out of prison and incarceration and be productive members of society again. And they largely want to. And so it's just a real failure of society to not do everything we can to support them in that endeavor. so I was really excited to meet the advocates of this and ask them if I could please carry this here because I've seen firsthand the impacts that somebody carrying and just giving a little bit can make so I hope you all can support this today

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify on HB 26-1256. My name is Kenneth Spindon, and I live in Denver. I was released in June of last year after serving 13 years in prison. Coming home, I had transitional housing at Hope Homes, and without the help and support I got there, I truly believe I would be back in prison. On the day of my release, I was one of the fortunate ones as I was given my state ID and my Social Security card, but not the $100 in gate money or more than $1,000 that I had saved in my time in prison. So when I got out, I had absolutely nothing. It was lucky that one of the residents at my transitional house took me to the dollar store and bought me food toothpaste and other basics I needed to survive He also gave me a few bus passes so that I could get around Without his help I would have been lost Parole reentry was helpful with clothes, some food, hygiene, and bus passes, as well as connecting me with community resources. But they no longer provide phones for anyone, and without a phone, everything you try and do is much harder. Finally, after about three and a half weeks and multiple emails from parole, The $100 in gate money and my savings from inside were sent to me, but it was in a check. And again, I was lucky I had my two forms of ID or I wouldn't have been able to cash it. Because no matter what anybody will tell you, nobody will accept your prison ID as a form of identification. With that money, I was able to get a phone and get some other things, which made things a lot easier. I know from my own experience that having your vital documents and some money when coming home is extremely important to making it through those first few days and weeks of starting to rebuild your life. And it can definitely be the difference between success and failure. So I ask you to vote in support of HB 26-1256. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Antonio Aguilar. I'm here representing myself and I'm a Denver resident. I was released after serving 22 years and since then I have seen firsthand what the other inmates have told me during our one-on-one sessions for I was a mental health peer assistant and a facility mentor. I realize how vital and important being day one ready is upon anyone's release. Personally, I purchased my birth certificate and received my social security card as well as participated in the DMV to go program so that my ID would be in the DOC's ID bank. This DMV to go program is done six plus months prior to anyone who's getting released. Unlike parolees, I weighed my parole so that I may go to the halfway house and get on my feet. But even then, I didn't receive my ID that was already in this ID bank until 15 days after my release. Then, 10 days later, my social security card and birth certificate followed. These two were in my file when I left. Even being prepared, this time frame is ridiculous. Now imagine if I had to order all of this after my release. Now being a DOC client in the community corrections, you're not entitled to the $100 gate money until you're paroled from community corrections, which makes no sense because I'm still in the same situation as a parolee. Not only that, when I complete the program and get paroled, I would have already established myself, which entails the saving of money, paying off restitution, and having a full-time job. The gate money will help anybody just getting out more than it would anyone who is already established, because when you get out with nothing, we're in need of everything. I ask all of you to think about this scenario and put yourselves in it. If you were dropped off in the city with no money, no ID, and no support, what would you do? Where would you go? What would you eat? What we're asking for are not wants, their needs. You cannot survive without your documents, no matter which class of society you come from. If a person with a leg up in life will struggle in this scenario, how much more worse is it for someone fresh out of prison? Their mental mind frame is already being stretched with just being released. Now add in these major life-changing obstacles. I believe the best approach we can have to reentry is to be day one ready upon release. That takes away a lot of stress and negative thinking and fears. For now we can rent a room go to labor ready and start working our second day out which helps to feed you and shelter you and set you up for success Without this now you struggling with the choices of stealing food just to eat or stealing a bike or a car for transportation or stealing for money to make more money We're not asking you to create a whole new foundation. This foundation is already there. We just need you to pass this bill that will hold DOC accountable and create a smoother transition for men and women to receive their vital documents. This all can be done because DOC closes your inmate banking account 7 to 10 working days before you're released. That's enough time to receive your documents from their ID bank to any facility in Colorado since they do transfers every day, all day, and even on weekends. I want to thank you for taking this bill into consideration. I hope you all vote yes so we can help those in need in the near future. Right now, only you all can help to make sure no one comes home from prison and faces this situation. Thank you.

Good evening, Chairperson and Committee members. My name is Alana Jones. I'm a resident of Denver. I was released from prison on August 7th of last year. Two years prior, being the proactive person that I am, I ordered my Social Security card, which should have been deposited in DOC's ID bank in Colorado Springs. Four or five months before my release, my case manager informed me that there was nothing in my file. So she ordered me my Social Security card once again. One week before my release, I was informed that there was no ID in my file. I was shocked and scared. Upon release, I had nothing to my name except the $100 gate money and no ID except the useless DOC ID, which no one accepts. I was released from Sterling and took the bus to Denver, filled with anxiety and uncertainty. I suffer from complex PTSD. It was traumatic and extremely disorienting enough to be sent into the community, but not having any IDs made it worse. I was scared, wondering how I was going to make it. I was unable to get work without IDs, but I searched anyway and made use of my time building my resume and making contacts. Fortunately, my family came to my rescue. Within two months, I had my driver's license and Social Security card, which are two critical forms of ID necessary for obtaining work. However, some are not as fortunate. I've heard horror stories about people's struggles getting their IDs. HB1256 is critical in helping people on parole with proper IDs. Most of us can get work, stay focused on building a positive life, and avoid going back to prison. This bill is also beneficial to the community since incarceration and reentry doesn't just affect the people who are just as impacted, it affects everyone. I ask for your support of HB 1256 because it's a step in the right direction for much-needed reform. It builds good community and it just simply makes sense. Thank you for your time and consideration in this most important matter.

All right, Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill HB 1256. My name is John DiPici, and I'm here today to share my story of hope. For over 20 years, I've either been in prison or out on parole. The best way I can describe it is that I was renting my own life, never truly investing in myself, my future, or anything meaningful. I take responsibility for that and only share that history to show how different my life is now. When I was released from prison this January, I walked out with my driver's license and full gate money. My mom had my birth certificate and my wife had my social security card. I also received a free phone and bus pass from parole services. Even the suit I'm wearing today was given to me by a program specifically designed to help people like myself re-entering society from prison. So for the first time, I had the basic tools I needed on day one. To me, that's what hope looks like. And when the system invests in my success, I invest in my success. Now I'm happy to say that just a few months after leaving prison, I am gainfully employed at the Center for Employment Opportunities, and I just graduated truck driving school, so I now have my commercial driver's license. That progress was possible because I had my vital documents when I needed them and a little money for unexpected make-or-break moments, like the day I was able to pay for an Uber to a random drug test appointment. To say all of this feels like a miracle would be an understatement, and none of it would be possible without those day-one tools and support. But my story isn't unique in the sense that anyone can succeed with the right tools and support. But not everyone has a mom or a wife holding their vital documents, and not everyone receives their full gate money. I'm going to go out on a limb here and just say a couple obvious facts. An ID costs a lot less than a prison bed. And Ms. Cutter's right. Panic-driven decisions happen within the first 72 hours of release. and having a little bit of money and vital documents makes it a little bit easier for us returning to society not to make those decisions and set ourselves on the wrong course. So that's why I'm respectfully asking you to support HB 26-1256 so the next person returning home from prison can have the same chance I've had. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sean McGrath. I'm the Outreach Specialist and Life Skills Instructor for CEO Center for Employment Opportunities here in Denver. I respectively request your support in House Bill 1256. What you've heard from individuals today reflects what I see every day in my job, in our offices here. My colleagues and I regularly encounter individuals who are eager to work but have the lack of necessary identification and financial means to even begin getting that identification. CO specializes in offering immediate and comprehensive employment services to individuals on parole or probation. We focus on those with the most risk of recidivism Since opening in 2018 we have enrolled 670 justice individuals in our employment reentry program and made over 400 full-time job placements through Denver and Colorado Spring offices. Findings show engagement in our program correlates in 22% recidivism reduction and 48% increase in employment after three years when measured to comparison groups. However, at this time, by the time they arrive to our office, most participants have faced significant barriers to meeting their most basic needs. Currently, the state operates a program to try to provide identification and a modest $100 release allowance, commonly known as gateway money to people upon release. However, this small support do not always reach participants we serve. Without even a small amount of money the first few days, it becomes difficult for participants to obtain coaching appointments, community work assignments, job interviews, and more. As part of our program, individuals are hired following orientation. This requires that we verify certain ID documents. Without identification, someone cannot reply for housing or apply for housing, benefits, and enroll in workforce training programs like CEO. Further, appropriate clothing, hygiene, cell phones, among the most immediate necessaries for people upon return. House Bill 1256 will remedy these gaps and make several common sense improvements. First, to ensure that everybody leaving custody receives the modest release allowance of $100 in full. Second, it strengthens the process for helping individuals secure a valid identification before release. providing gateway money to everyone upon release at its full $100 amount, plus providing a state ID or practical tools. Helping someone to succeed the first few days is far less expensive than the cost of someone returning to prison. For these reasons, the Center for Employment Opportunities respectfully urges the committee to support HB 26-1256. Thank you for your time and consideration.

yes thank you chair my name is Gino Shvedoff I'm the founder and CEO at Hazelbrook Sober Living and Recovery for nearly a decade we've operated over 40 recovery homes across Colorado working with individuals transitioning out of incarceration homelessness and addiction I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 1256, sponsored by Rev. Jackson and others. This bill addresses one of the most consistent and damaging gaps we seen in the reentry process what happens the moment someone is released At Hazelbrook we work with individuals every single day who are coming out of prison or jail And far too often, they arrive with almost nothing. No ID, no social security card, no birth certificate, no money. No way to get to where they need to go. And we expect them to succeed. But it's hard to get a job without an ID. You can't get housing without identification. You can't even access many basic services. So what happens? Many people get stuck immediately, not because they don't want to do better, but because they physically can't take the first step. We've seen individuals released who spend days or weeks trying to replace documents, missing opportunities and losing momentum before they even begin. That early window, those first 72 hours is critical. If we lose them, we often lose them entirely. House Bill 26-1256 is about fixing that exact moment. It ensures when someone is released, they have basic financial support, transportation, and most importantly, the documents they need to function in society. These aren't handouts. These are requirements to rejoin society. At Hazelbrook, we've built systems to help people recover, but too often they're starting from zero, trying to rebuild what they should have been in place before release. this bill changes that it gives people a real starting point instead of setting them up to fail at day one and when people have that foundation they stabilize faster engage in services they get jobs and they stay out of the system this is not just the right thing to do it's the smart thing to do this bill moves us in the right direction on behalf of hazelbrook and hundreds of individuals we serve, we strongly urge you to support House Bill 26-1256. Thank you.

No, Mr. Chair, I do not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1256 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.

Ms. Jensen, please call the roll to send 1256 to Appropriations.

Doherty. Yes.

Wallace. Aye.

Mr. Chair. Aye. All right. The vote is 5 to 2. Congratulations and good luck in appropriations. Senator Cutter. Thank you, committee. All right. Committee, that brings us to our last bill, which is 1276. I'm co-presenting this with Senator Judah. So once again, Mr. Vice Chair will be presiding over this part of the hearing. Thank you committee Good bill vote, yes. You like it? That was on the mic. All right. We are ready to go to House Bill 1276 by Senators Judah and Weissman, who are before us. Who would like to start? Senator Judah.

Right now, that trust is broken. In my district, and in yours, we have seen the consequences of a system that prioritizes cruelty, profit, and enforcement quotas over human lives. We have seen what happens when government becomes a pipeline for harm instead of a safeguard against it. Let's be honest about who we're talking about. Immigration is not binary. It's not documented or undocumented. its DACA recipients, its asylum seekers, students, survivors of violence, refugee, long-time Coloradans raising families and children navigating a system that has failed them. These are not abstractions. These are our communities. They are our neighbors, they are our co-workers, and they are our families. And we cannot accept a version of Colorado where they are forced into the shadows, made to feel unsafe or simply existing, for simply existing. This bill has already been stripped down. We have compromised. We have removed provisions. What remains is the most basic necessary protections. At its core, this bill, we are making sure that if a state or political subdivision shares persons of identifying information not related to a criminal matter, that both employee and employer can be held responsible. That is not radical. That is responsible governance. because when we fail to set that boundary, the consequences are real and they are devastating. We saw it when federal agencies bypassed their own safeguards and sought information about unaccompanied children and their sponsors without proper legal process. I want everyone to think about what that means. Sponsors, often parents or close relatives, are now too afraid to come forward. Children are left in custody longer, families are separated, and those same children become more vulnerable to exploitation, to trafficking, and to forced labor. This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. And inside detention facilities, the conditions are unacceptable by any standard. People are being denied adequate medical care, unsafe or inconsistent living conditions, conditions like the lack of enough sanitation like toilets for folks, sorry, for folks stuffed in a pod, living conditions with extreme temperatures like experiencing freezing cold temperatures from the AC or no proper warm clothes. clothing, and constant light that makes it difficult to sleep, and barriers to accessing basic necessities like health care, edible food, or nutritious food, and individuals have reported needing to rely on outside money, sometimes $80 to $100 a week just to afford enough food. This morning, I spoke with someone who was recently released after 10 months. they were potentially headed to an ICE hearing to be deported today. And I don't know if they were deported. But they did tell me that so many people around them were hospitalized and rushed to the emergency room because they weren't given the treatment that they needed. This person struggled to get glasses for four months and is currently living without glasses. Her son had appendicitis, and when they went to the medical department, he wasn't seen by a doctor. He was only checked by a nurse who told him, leave and come back in three days if you still have pain. He was finally taken to actually be seen after he threw up in the waiting room and begged the nurse that he couldn't even walk from the pain. This is not a system that is strained. This is a system that is failing. And we are complicit if we allow our state agencies to feed into it. Let me be clear. The majority of people in detention have no criminal history, and yet they are being treated as such and as they are disposable. So the question before us is simple. Are we going to uphold our values? Are we going to look the other way? Are we going to protect the people who trust us? Or are we going to continue enabling a system that puts them in harm's way? Our responsibility is not abstract. It's immediate. It's human. Colorado's values demand more than silence. They demand action. And I urge an aye vote. And with that, I want to hand it to my co-prime. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Weissman. Committee members, any questions for the bill's sponsors? All right. Seeing none at this point, we will move to the witness testimony phase. I've received a panelist list from the sponsors, and we're going to start with Anna Rose Craig, Commissioner George Marlin, Isabella Muscara, and Andrea Loya. All right. That was our only one online. Could we pull up Nick Robles online Usman Ba online? No. Okay. We'll just call this a panel for now and keep working through the list. So, Commissioner Marlin, welcome. Thanks for your patience tonight. Go ahead.

Thank you. All right. Ana Rosa Craig, please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Robles.

Thank you, Mr. Robles. All right, committee, any questions for this panel? All right, seeing none, thank you all so much for your testimony and for being with us tonight. Just one moment. Okay, we're going to move on next to Camilla Espinoza, David Tosig, Maureen Daly, Isaac Bevis, And then remotely Ben DiNardo. Yes. Selena Lopez. No. Naomi Andre. No. Bennett Rutledge. Okay. All right, that's a good panel. All right, we'll start here in person. Whoever would like to begin, please introduce yourself, and then your testimony time will begin. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, for having me.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Roberts and members of the committee, and thanks for your service and staying here so late at night, and I really appreciate it. I'm here to speak in support of House Bill 1276. My name is David Tosig, and I live in Littleton. I'm a member of Voices for Justice with the Colorado Council of Churches, which supports Colorado legislation that values commitment to justice, compassion, and equity. I'm also with the Southern Front Range Chapter of Together Colorado. Together Colorado is a nonpartisan, multiracial, and multi-faith community organization working to place human dignity at the center of public life across the state. My faith teaches me that all people are born in the image of God and have dignity and worth. My faith specifically tells me to love the foreigner in my land. That's why we support House Bill 1276. Among other things, it allows public health agencies to inspect facilities that house or detain individuals that are non-citizens for purpose of civil immigration proceedings and requires those facilities to comply with health and safety requirements. One of the things that I want to talk about is these hold rooms that have come to our attention. and we think that this bill is broad enough to apply to these hold facilities, but if you want to make it clearer, the bill could be amended to add that. And I'll tell you, specifically, we've been looking into, in the south metro area, our group's been researching and investigating an ice hold facility, or some people call them black sites. It's called Den Hold, and it's located at 1244 East Cayley Avenue in Centennial. Based on ICE's own data obtained by the Deportation Data Project, in 2025 there were 1,927 people that were detained, of which 190 were held more than 12 hours, 74 were held more than 24 hours, and 21 were held more than 72 hours. That 12-hour time limit comes from a previous policy that was in there, and in June of 2025 that was increased to 72 hours. These facilities are not equipped to hold people overnight. There are no beds, there's no showers. They're not protecting these people or treating them with safety or dignity. If we want to make it crystal clear, please consider adding in that specifically applies to these hold rooms as there are currently nine of them around Colorado. So on behalf of Voices for Justice and the Southern Chapter of Colorado, South Front Range Chapter of Together Colorado, thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Isaac Beavis, and I am representing myself. and I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1276. All people regardless of legal immigration status are not only legally entitled to the rights and freedoms present in our state and federal constitutions but they also deserve to be treated with basic dignity and human rights Historically, immigration detention facilities have violated these sacred rights. We have seen this time and time again in national news, such as the so-called Alligator Alcatraz in southern Florida. We have also seen it here in our own state of Colorado. For example, here are just a few recent headlines regarding the Aurora Immigration Detention Center. The Aurora Sentinel from March 3rd, 2026, says, Aurora ICE immigration detainees face hunger and health woes, report fines. The Denver 7 from April 1st, 2026 says health officials say Aurora Ice Detention Facility blocked staff interviews during illness outbreak probe. The Denver Gazette from March 3rd, 2026 says report claims poor living health food conditions at Aurora Ice Detention Center. The Denver Post from March 27, 2026, says Adams County admonishes ICE detention center over poor access communication during public health investigation. These are just a few articles about a single detention center, not more than a 30-minute drive from this very Capitol building over in Aurora, Colorado. At the national level, from CBS News on May 1st, ICE reports 18th detainee death in four months, putting agency on track for new record. These detention centers are no different than the camps built by the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s. I will close by saying that many members of this committee acknowledged in closing statements of Senate Bill 176 the desire to hold ICE officers accountable. So please vote to hold them accountable with House Bill 1276. Thank you.

Am I on? Yes. Thanks. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thanks for this opportunity to talk. My name is Dr. Maureen Daly. I'm a retired public health physician. I'm representing myself today and I'm in strong support of House Bill 1276. I read the Adams County Public Health Report about the disease outbreak investigation they did at the detention center this past January. It is what prompted me to speak today. It was disturbing to read that the Aurora Detention Center acted with impunity in not cooperating with the inspection and not following recommendations intended to protect the health and safety of the detainees, the staff there, and the greater community. The passage of 1276 would not only give CDPHE more authority to inspect detention centers, but it would also allow them to impose a penalty or revoke their license for noncompliance. Conditions that have been reported at the detention center are summarized in the 2026 geo-accountability report. Inadequate nutrition food safety concerns extreme temperatures lack of treatment for preexisting medical conditions improper and negligent medical response to acute illnesses, and worsening mental health of the detainees. The list of grievances is consistent with the personal accounts that I myself have heard. And perhaps what is most troubling is that in-custody deaths in detention centers across the country are currently at an all-time high. They even exceed the spike that occurred during COVID-19. At least three known deaths have occurred in the Aurora Detention Center since 2012. CDPHE must be able to make unannounced visits, inspect all areas of the facility, assess compliance with standards, do medical record reviews, and find a way to safely elicit information from detainees and staff without detainees and staff fearing of retribution. Passage of this bill is vitally important And I hope each and every one of you will support it Thank you very much for your time

Yes, I'm here Members of the committee, thank you once again for your time My name is Ben DiNardo and I'm here representing myself. I'm here in support of House Bill 1276 as it's the bare minimum required given the current actions of our federal government. Please help us set reasonable standards and mechanisms for enforcement to ensure that our neighbors who are abducted by the federal government are treated with the dignity all people are guaranteed by both the U.S. and Colorado Constitution. These facilities are no different than the concentration camps set up in 1930s Germany. Those camps didn't start as the death camps they ended the war as. They started as protection camps to where Jews and other political prisoners could self deport to and then be deported to other countries, including for a time, Palestine. before they later became the death camps that they ended the war as. They started, as I said, they started very much like the facilities our government is currently running. The horrendous acts this administration is doing to human beings simply trying to live their lives are being done in our name, the name of the American people. It's being done in all of our names, not just the constituents testifying in favor of this bill today, but your names as well, honorable members of the committee. As constituents, we have very little power to fight back against federal overreach. But what we can do is petition our representatives to fight back against the federal government on our behalf. that's why I and many others are here today to ask you our representatives to make sure these new concentration camps don't become death camps this is not the first time the federal government has established concentration camps in our state less than 90 years ago Camp Amatchu was established to ensure Japanese Americans and those with Japanese descent hindsight has obviously shown that this inhumanity the inhumanity of such internment. Yet we today are repeating the same mistakes less than five years after Camp Amachi became a national monument in the state of Colorado. We need to learn from the past and work to prevent such internment from continuing in our state in the 21st century. While this bill is only the first step, it's the necessary step that we have before us today, and I implore the committee to vote in favor of HB 26-1276.

Thank you, Vice Chair Davis, and good evening members of the committee. Thank you for hanging in there. And I'd like to give a special thank you to the sponsors for addressing my concerns for peoples with ancestral roots in this soil since the last time I testified. I would like to mention that the supremacy clause has been talked about a lot in recent weeks. But that is part of the main part of the Constitution. It has been amended by the 10th Amendment and even further by the 14th Amendment. So Colorado is tasked to provide a place where people can be innocent until proven guilty by a jury. With providing due process to all people. And to provide equal protection of the laws to all people. in particular one of the things that got my dander up is that Brian Morales one of my next city neighbors right across the city line who was born in Denver was swept up and shipped out by ICE and And so justice is worth the quarter million dollars in the previous fiscal note. And I see that's actually gone down a bit since. So as a person who is sworn to the Constitution of the United States of America, I ask you, who also are sworn to deliver for that Constitution by voting yes on this bill. Thank you.

Sorry Thank you for letting me speak again today I know it been a long day And on days like this when it just been so long and I have a headache and I pretty sure a lot of people also have a headache and I think that it's absolutely nothing compared to the hell that people who have been detained in these facilities face on a daily basis. They are subjected to just the most inhumane conditions that it is truly despicable that we allow people to live in these conditions. And I'm asking you to pass this bill to make their lives just a little bit better. I also want to state my disgust that the transportation part of this bill has been removed because when we improve our detention facility here in Colorado, We are just going to allow inmates and detainees to be transferred to out-of-state concentration camps to be tortured until they sign voluntary deportation papers or until they die, because that has happened quite a lot. So I encourage you to pass this bill, and I also encourage you to pass it unamended. Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee, my name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. HB 261276 is a virtue signaling measure that is overreaching, hard to enforce, full of unfunded mandates, and ultimately unnecessary. It is ironic that a $50,000 civil penalty is being presented as a deterrent when I have heard many at the legislature argue that increased fines or penalties are ineffective, but this route is supported when a penalty serves your purpose. One of the few provisions in the bill with merit is that minors cannot be detained in the same room as a non-familial adult, but also I approve that Section 9 is being stricken. The bigger thing we need to address is the ongoing conflation of regular approved immigration or asylum and illegal immigration. Regardless of what sponsors and proponents say, they are not the same. Legal immigrants should be able to trust local law enforcement and deserve protections from abuse. ICE, CBP, and other law enforcement must do their due diligence to ensure that people they arrest or detain are here illegally or have committed another crime. Those who came into our country and state illegally have already broken federal law and should be immediately sent back to their homeland. In this regard, there should be due process only to verify immigration status. Even in cases of legal immigration, if crimes are committed, deportation is a potential consequence. It is unfortunate that some legal immigrants have gotten tangled up in federal deportation, but that doesn't mean we should stop deportation for those who entered our country illegally. HB 26-1276 will not help legal immigrants and that is where our responsibility lies so I ask for your no vote thank you thank you uh committee any questions for this witness seeing none uh thank you so much Okay let go to everyone else that was here in support of the bill

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Senators. I will not keep you long, but my name is Christopher Nurse, and I'm the political director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, a dedicated group of organizations ensuring that Colorado remains the safest state in the country to be an immigrant, and this evening I'm asking you to support House Bill 1276. Senators, for Colorado's immigrant communities, the stakes behind this bill are not only concrete, they are constitutional. The conditions that Anna Rose Cragen mentioned earlier do not merely offend the basic notions of human dignity. They implicate due process and humane treatment guarantees that bind every actor exercising state authority within the borders of the state. By restoring meaningful and transparent oversight, 1276 reaffirms that this General Assembly, and by extension the state of Colorado, will not abdicate its responsibility to enforce its own laws simply because federal immigration proceedings are involved. It rebuilds the public trust essential to community safety and cooperation with law enforcement. Senators, this training requirement in Section 6 will ensure that every certified law enforcement officer within the four corners of this state understands a core legal distinction under state law. Civil immigration detainers are not warrants, and they do not authorize the same level of detention or cooperation that a judicial warrant would require. Along with this, Senator, Section 7 wisely and correctly tasks the Attorney General, and I thank the bill's sponsors for that amendment, with developing and publicly disseminating a model policy on the protection of personal identifying information. This policy will function as a practical and statewide toolkit for political subdivisions, equipping employees with clear procedures for handling PII requests from federal immigration authorities while fully respecting Colorado's already robust statutory protections. Together, these provisions translate the bill's framework into concrete and frontline accountability. Senators, I'm going to close really simply. We have stakeholder this bill. we have amended this bill 13 times and probably 15 by the end of this evening. The ball is now in your court. Senators, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, strongly emphatically in all of the terms that I have not been able to use to describe how strongly we want you to support this bill this evening, we ask you to support 1276 this evening. And if you have questions, I am more than happy to answer them. Thank you.

Okay, I think we. Mr. Veriloy, you froze up, so we're going to move on to somebody else. And if you're back, we can get the end of your testimony. Dr. Neal, please go ahead.

Sorry, you froze up and looks like you're back. I think we lost you about 30 seconds ago, if you want to conclude.

Thank you. All right, Dr. Neal, go ahead.

Thank you, Miss Muscara. Please go ahead.

Thank you. And then Camilla Espinoza.

thank you committee any questions for this panel all right seeing oh yes senator hendrickson

Mr. Nurse.

Okay, so let me reframe this. May I dialogue Mr Chair Please If somebody is overstaying a visa a criminal offense

Okay. If somebody presents themselves at a border or crossing seeking asylum, Do you know, is it the current law that they need to be accepted and issued a proceedings date to pursue their asylum case?

Thank you. Are we, when I say we, I mean the federal government, are we enforcing that law, meaning that we are providing them that opportunity?

Okay. Thank you. I'll leave it there.

Thank you. I want to make sure everybody has 24 and 25.

All right, Mr. Chair, I move L24 to House Bill 1276.

Members, this reflects a couple of things we have been discussing with the executive branch subsequent to the bill coming over from the House. As noted, we strike the entirety of Section 2, we strike the entirety of Section 9, and then in Section 4, in the middle of the amendment, you'll see we're kind of restating provision from one existing section of, or subsection of this broader section to another one at the request of CDPHE. We're also striking out within the entirety of Section 4 references to environmental impact studies, if you will, and also to licensure. CDPHU doesn't really do those things vis-à-vis these facilities. What matters is that they be able to inspect, and that can happen and will continue to happen as necessary under the bill, absent a licensure framework or an EIS framework. So that's 24, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. I move L25 to 1276.

All right, so this compresses and sort of refocuses Section 7, which, as it comes from the House, is a charge to the AGO to develop a model policy concerning compliance obligations, essentially, of state government entities under Title 24, Article 74. 74, that created some static as between different parts of the executive branch. So the amendment proposes a much simpler statement by which the AGO shall do a model policy. Subtle difference in drafting, but a big difference in effect. 24-74.1, these are entities with obligations to develop policies pursuant to 276 that the General Assembly passed last year. The idea here is simply that a model could help them with their policy developing and compliance obligations. I became aware through the Colorado Lawyers Committee of one library district frankly falling short of those obligations We want everybody to just comply and get it right in the first instance hence the utility of a model policy by the largest public sector law office in the state of Colorado, the AGO. So we ask for your support of 25.

Senator Judah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. I just want to reiterate the importance of the bill and the urgency of this moment. People are going into ICE detention facilities and coming out in body bags. and this cannot simply be the way that we choose to enforce laws, especially when many of the people that are in these ICE detention facilities have not been charged with a crime. The way people are being treated in these facilities is inhumane and I think if this were to come up with any other population than undocumented or whatever status they may hold we would be having a much different conversation and I urge us to think about what that conversation would look like if they were not immigrants or refugees or SIV holders or DACA recipients. Again, I want to thank everyone who testified tonight. I want to thank my co-primer coalition and also the committee for hanging in there and staying so late. And I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair and committee for hearing this. As you heard, as you might have gleaned from just looking at the re-engrossed, the bill's been on quite a journey. A lot amended out. One of the witnesses alluded to that. The bill has shrunk, I think, with reluctance of everybody involved. It just shrunk a lot more tonight. What's left is still important. Frankly, it's pretty hard to talk about what we're talking about here in a neutral tone of voice, because what's going on is abhorrent. I have the distinction that it is going on in the Senate District that I'm here to serve. there is the one facility that we know about there may be more depending on what you read and what happens in our crazy world as a state we are not without any ability to do something about that to utilize our health safety and welfare powers that's chiefly what the bill as amended is about it's very important and we ask for your support thank you

Microphone, sorry. I move 1276 as amended to the Appropriations Committee. And our GES vote.

Senators Carson.

Doherty.

Henrickson.

Pelton.

Wallace.

Weissman.

Mr. Chair.