Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 108

Benavidez. Bridges. Bridges. Excuse. Bright. Carson. Catlin. Catlin. Excuse. Cutter. Danielson. Doherty, Exum, Frizzell, Gonzales, Hendrickson, Judah, Kip, Kirkmeyer, Kirkmeyer Kolker Lindstedt Liston Marchman Mullica Pelton B Pelton R Rich Roberts Rodriguez Simpson, Snyder, Sullivan, Wallace, Weissman, Weissman. Weissman. Excuse. Zamora Wilson. Weissman. Catlin. Bridges.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. Would everyone please stand up for the pledge? Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Come on. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. President. I moved up the journal of Thursday, April.

Resolution 25. Correctly engrossed Senate Bill 138, 165, 172. Correctly re-engrossed Senate Bill 17, 170, 171, 173, and 174. Correctly revised House Bill 1005, 1006, and 1312. Correctly re-revised House Bill 1052, 1193, 1214, 1242, 1258, 1260, 1283, 1290, and 1313. Correctly enrolled Senate Bill 92, 101, 158, and 159.

Committee on Health and Human Services. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1336 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to the committee as a whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed in the consent calendar. House Bill 1069 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation Senado Bill 167 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation House Bill 1227 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with a recommendation that it be placed in the Consent Calendar. House Bill 1347 be referred favorably to the Committee on Appropriations. Senado Bill 100 be postponed indefinitely. Haussle 13.14 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation and with a recommendation to be placed in the consent calendar. Committee on agriculture and natural resources after consideration of the merits Committee recommends the following House Bill 11.32 be amended as follows So amended be referred to the Committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation. House Bill 13.42 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Committee on finance after consideration on the merits, committee recommends the following Senate Bill 178 be amended as follows so men to be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. Committee on Local Government and Housing, after consideration on the merits committee, recommends the following. House Bill 1196 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1224 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1308 be postponed indefinitely.

Thank you, Mr. President, You're high, humble. I am humbly here to serve you.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Mr. President. I asked for a moment of personal privilege.

Colleagues, it is leadership day for the Pueblo Latino Chamber, and I'm excited. We will have them here with us very shortly. When you get the chance, please say hi. They'll be here in just a couple minutes. This is the first time this year that that whole group is coming up to Denver. They are not used to the traffic like I am, so give them a little patience.

Thank you, Mr. President. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move for the reconsideration of Senate Bill 134.

What's that?

Withdrawn.

Senate Bill 134 by Senators Lindstedt and Judah and Representatives Durand and McCluskey concerning the imposition of fees by payment card networks.

Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 134. Are there any no votes?

with a vote of 18 I 17 no zero absent and zero excuse Senate bill 134 is passed.

Third reading of the bills. Consent calendar. Mr. Schaffer, please read the title of the bill on the consent calendar.

Julia Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of the bill on third reading of bill's final passage consent calendar, which is Senate Bill 165.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded as a no vote for Senate Bill 165.

Senators Amabile, Catlin, Marchman, Judah, Kip, Mr. Minority Leader, Ball, Bridges. Please add the President and Senator Cutter.

Senate Bill 138 by Senators Doherty and Mullica and Representative Stuart Kaye concerning measures to reduce the administrative burden on the healthcare system.

Further discussion? Seeing none of the motion is a passage of Senate Bill 138. Are there any no votes?

Will the vote of? 32 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent, and 0 excused. Senate Bill 138 is passed. Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schaffer, please read the title of Senate Bill 172.

Senator Henriksen. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 172 on third and final read and ask for an aye vote.

Kirkmeyer. Frizzell. Zamora Wilson. Rich. Baisley. Pelton B. Liston. Bright. Carson. Gonzalez.

Senators Judah, Marchman, Colker, Lindstedt, Sullivan, Ball, Exum, Cutter, Bridges. please add the president.

House Bill 1005 by Representatives Mabry and Bacon and Senators Danielson and Judah concerning measures to reduce barriers in the Labor Peace Act to promote good faith collective bargaining negotiations and in connection there with reducing an appropriation.

Further discussion.

Further discussion. Senator Judah.

Senator Judah was gracious enough to acknowledge that she'd be willing to pay a fine, And therefore, Senator Judah will be fined $1 for acknowledging these beautiful families and people that I can't acknowledge because I have to pay another dollar to the Senate Secretary. All right. Very good.

As a senator from the greatest swing seat myself, always a tier one, I've struggled and I appreciate the acknowledging that you shared. I struggled to win my re-elections.

Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1005.

Baisley, Liston, Pelton R, Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. With a vote of 23 ayes, 12 noes, zero absintheer, excuse. House Bill 1005 is passed. Co-sponsors, senators. Unfortunately, we do not allow applause during floor work here in the Senate chamber, and I want to make sure we are respectful and have decorum. Mr. Minority Leader, Majority Leader, I keep messing up, El Jefe.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1006 on third reading and ask for an aye vote.

Senators, Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, Liston, Pelton R., Carson, Bright, Pelton B., with a vote of 26 ayes, 9 noes, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House bill 1006 is passed. All sponsors, Senators Marchman, Kip, Colker, Amabile, Exum, Cutter. Please add the President.

House Bill 1312 by Representative Clifford and Senator Mullica. Concerning measures related to peace officer participation and matters related to peace officer performance and in connection therewith requiring the Attorney General to submit a proposal to update law enforcement academy training programs, change the composition of the post board requiring a person be 21 years old to pass post board examinations for certification, and authorizing a peace officer or academy staff person to be eligible to receive training or grants for training offered by any state or local entity.

Further discussion. Sooner for discussion of motions and passage of House Bill 1312. Are there any no votes?

With a vote of 29 ayes 6 no 0 House vote 1312 is passed Go sponsors

Majority Rodriguez, would you like to grant leave?

Thank you, Mr. President.

And any future JBC members?

Okay. No, only current. You heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The aye's having that motion is adopted. Y'all ain't got to go home, but you got to get up out of here if you want to. General orders, second reading of bills, consent calendar.

second reading of bills, consent calendar. You've heard the motion. And all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion is adopted. Senator resolves itself to the committee. The whole committee will consider it as General Assembly Bill Consent Calendar. And Senator Roberts will take the chair.

House Bill 1235 by Representative Foray and Senator Doherty concerning updates to the medical assistance program. House Bill 1299 by Representative Garcia-Sander and Lukens and Senator Pelton B concerning reduction of regulatory burdens on local education providers.

which consists of House Bill 1235 and House Bill 1299, and there are no committee reports. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of all the bills on the general order second reading of bills consent calendar. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the bills on the consent calendar are adopted.

The motion is for the committee to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the committee will rise and report.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. The committee met and had a number of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general orders, second reading of bills.

the committee will come to order the coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber

the motion is for Senate Bill 68 to lay over until Monday May 4th all those in favor say aye aye those opposed no the ayes have it and that bill will lay over Majority Leader Rodriguez

those opposed no the ayes have it and that bill will lay over to the bottom of the calendar Will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1113?

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1113 and the State Affairs and Appropriations Committee reports.

Thank you Mr Chair In the State Affairs Committee we had several amendments to clarify the language of the bill including voter registration transfers vacancy election timing and pre communication We also strengthened protections against voter intimidation unlawful firearms at polling places and interference by officials or troops And finally we safeguarded against further interference in our elections by limiting third-party access to voter data without a warrant. Is there any further discussion on the state affairs report?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In appropriations, we discussed the use of the Secretary's cash fund to pay for two provisions of this bill, one to create updates allowing pre-registered voters to update their registration, and as well as the Secretary's work to geocode all addresses in the voter registration system, which is a critical and long overdue update.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment.

Will the clerk please read L45? Amendment L45, Amendment Regrowth Bill, Page 5, Line 1, Strike Corrections and Substitute Services.

To the amendment.

Is there any further discussion? See none. The motion enforces the adoption of L45. All those in favor say aye. Aye. As opposed, no. You guys have it and that amendment is adopted.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L46?

To the amendment.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion enforces the adoption of Amendment L-46. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Now, 46 is adopted. To the bill. Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have yet another amendment, please, sir. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. Clerk, please read L-47.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-47.

Thank you. This is the further clarification for the language that we just discussed in L-46. Again, the SOS has 60 days to review a petition instead of 30.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one final amendment at the desk, please.

Amendment L-49.

To the amendment.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of L-49. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Aye. The ayes have it. L-49 is adopted.

or regulatory policy or environmental policy or anything else is resolved. It's easy for us to kind of take that for granted because we've been, for all of our lives here in this country, in a stable democracy. I think it's really powerful to reflect on the experience of other countries in the world that haven't had the privileges that we've had for so long. I remember growing up reading the papers and different nations in Africa were having their first free election for the first time in decades, you know, in the life of most people then living in those countries. and people would queue in line, basically out in the open in the desert, for up to 48 hours to vote. Because particularly when you haven't had the privilege, you understand how important it is to be able to be part of your own destiny. You know, fast forward in our time, I think we've all seen the news from the nation of Hungary, which is a country that has been slipping into unfreedom for years and over a decade. and they've just had a change in direction to a new leader who is, in every account I've read, considered conservative. But nonetheless, the people there feel that they are now more in control of their own destiny than they had been. That is what elections are about, is letting you be in charge of your own destiny. So I just want to sort of remind us of the table stakes here. Now, fortunately, you know, we haven't had to walk those paths. instead in Colorado, we have been a state that for a long time has had a lot of options and has tried to make it easy for people to vote. Back in 2004, we had somewhat different election laws back then, but half of people exercised the option to vote by mail. As long ago as 2004, another roughly quarter of folks voted early in person at any of the locations where you can do that and then some people continued to vote on election day. What we had seen over you know the 10 years subsequent to that is mail is just convenient. More people chose to do it. Finally we standardized our laws in in 13 to get rid of some inconsistencies in application. For the most part we've been voting in that framework ever since you know 12 going on 15 years now. Every year or two in this place legislators have worked with our SOS, worked with our county clerks to just make INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH AN EYE TO CONTINUED EASE AND SIMPLICITY FOR VOTERS WITH AN EYE TO GREATER SECURITY AND EFFICIENCY AND STANDARDIZATION AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT 1113 IS DOING HERE. IT IS A FICT BILL AS YOU'VE NOTICED IF YOU'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THAT. FRANKLY A LOT OF IT IS PRETTY MINOR AND TECHNICAL. WE STILL HAVE REFERENCES IN OUR ELECTION CODE TO PRECINTS. THEY EXIST. THEY'RE IMPORTANT FOR REPORTING RESULTS BUT I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WE DON'T GENERALLY VOTE IN THAT LEVEL anymore. So some of the stuff is small bore like that. Some of the changes here are more important in their response of two modern conditions. They are to make sure that people can vote without intimidation, without interference. They are to see two security concerns that our election professionals county clerks have identified Bottom line I think if we look at how Colorado ranks compared to all the other states in the country we are consistently one of the top five maybe a top three turnout state in the last number of elections. That is substantially because we make it easy for people to vote Democratic, Republican, unaffiliated, any other party. We make it easy and secure and convenient for people to vote, and when you do that, people exercise the prerogative to participate, and we see high turnout. And frankly, the higher is turnout, the more of everybody who could vote actually votes. I think the more confidence that all of us can have in the result. Frankly, I wish every state had the kind of laws that we have. We would be a richer, more perfected Democratic Republic if we had that. The other 49 states obviously aren't up to us. Colorado is. We bring forward 1113 in the spirit of continuing to optimize our election laws for the sake of all of our constituents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Colorado has gold standard elections and one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country, as my good colleague from Aurora mentioned. Coloradans are enfranchised in a way that both inspires and empowers their civic participation. The ability to safely lift one's voice in order to determine our future is never guaranteed, and those of us elected to serve should therefore never take for granted the sacred duty that is ensuring those free and fair elections. They are the very heart of our nation and the core of our promise as a people. They are the only reason our work in this building has legitimacy. They are the only legacy that matters. Colorado has kept the promise of our democracy by continuously passing legislation to fortify our elections while creating ease of access, including mail-in voting, same-day voter registration, and accessible 24-hour drop boxes. This bill builds upon that work through extended voting windows, earlier access to those drop boxes, and polling centers that will stay open longer. It also takes steps to strengthen protections for voters and safeguard against threats to our elections. In the face of federal interference and the president's recent executive order creating unconstitutional federal voter lists and changing mail-in ballot standards, we must ensure Coloradans' rights are protected. Simply put, this bill is about the continued integrity of Colorado's elections and ensuring that every eligible voter can participate freely, securely, and confidently. We should be so proud as a state to have built a system that the nation looks to as a model, one grounded in ease for voters, transparency, and trust. And we have a responsibility to defend it. We will not allow shifting federal actions or political pressure from any administration to undermine the elections that Coloradans expect and deserve. Our state has always led with evidence, with bipartisan collaboration, and with a steadfast commitment to democracy. This bill continues that tradition, and rather than undermining elections for political gain, it demonstrates that Colorado's voting systems will continue to be led with certainty, stability, and integrity. I thank all of the stakeholders for their diligence and input, but more importantly, for the steadfast service to our voters during our time that their work has never been more important, nor more fraught, nor more under threat. Passing this legislation affirms that our elections belong to the people of Colorado and that we will do everything in our power to keep them secure and accessible. We owe this to our election workers, we owe it to our people and we owe it to each generation will inherit the republic. Let us remember that Colorado gave the right to vote and has treated the right to vote not as a privilege for a few, but as a promise to all. In 1893, the women of this state won the right to vote decades before that dream was realized for women nationally, and it was done through a popular vote of men. Because Coloradans have always believed that democracy is strongest when every voice is heard and that legacy lives on in every ballot cast today. Voting is not just a civic act, it is an inheritance, hard won and deeply sacred. It is how we honor those who fought to be included and how we shape the future for those who will come after us. When we protect our elections, we are not just choosing leaders or expressing opinions on issues, we are affirming that unshakable principle that power belongs to the people. I thank you each for your consideration and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I rise in opposition to this bill. It introduces administrative complexity and discretionary standards that may undermine uniform election practices. laws and the reform should enhance security, transparency, and simplicity, not broaden bureaucratic control over how elections are conducted. It was mentioned about the gold standard. As we talked in the previous bill, I have dealt with technical arenas, classified programs. When it comes to election integrity, I have researched this arena. We Colorado has experienced multiple SISA vulnerabilities. We've had the Secretary of State release hundreds of BIOS passwords. the power from the local county clerks and we the people has been centralized to the Secretary of State. Even our ability to have third party audits have been removed. The power of the election judges have been reduced. The Secretary of State also had over 30,000 registrations go to non-citizens. We have bloated voter rolls. And just recently, Judicial Watch was successful in fighting a case against the Secretary of state where over 372,000 inactive voters were removed from our bloated voter rolls. We were told that the computers were secure. There's no internet capability. Then we found out that there were Bluetooth and Wi capability but then we were told oh they not turned on Well have you ever been in the counting room I have I watched the whole process And I can tell you there vulnerabilities With my experience in these systems, they are not secure. You cannot guarantee that. Have you seen the software? Nope, none of us have. So to believe that we are the gold standard, I would say it's a belief. It's like a religion. You can't factually state with assurance, 100% assurance, that these are secure elections. and to say that increasing accessibility is a signal of success at the cost of our security, I would greatly disagree. and I would argue against this notion about being the gold standard. When citizens can't even audit their own elections, there is no transparency, and what we're doing is we're opening up the aperture even more for vulnerabilities. We're opening up to more vulnerabilities, less security, less transparency, and I urge a no vote on HB 1113. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, every time I see an election-related bill, it's almost like having PTSD. When I was a county clerk, it was shortly after the Gore-Bush election. and the Colorado State Legislature and probably all legislatures across the country were making changes to the election process, it seemed like, every year. We could barely get one process in place when the legislature thought they knew better and they put something else in place and voters were upset. We would be out at the vote centers because we had vote centers back then and they were so mad and they were like, what are you doing? And I already had it pre-printed, legislators' names and contact information because they were so upset. But here we are with another bill, and one of the things that I certainly agree with is that our election process is extremely accessible and it has taken years because I started in 2003 through 2010 and then we went to this all balloting in 2013 and you know so here we are 13 years later with that and we still making all of these changes You know, adding these layers of reporting and additional timelines and procedural mandates will only produce diminishing returns on voter satisfaction. Rather than improving efficiencies, these requirements risk diverting time and resources away from the core function of administering secure and reliable elections. At a time when election administrators are balancing operational demands with limited budgets, I would hope that we as a legislature would be cautious about imposing new mandates that add complexity without clear necessity. While the bill contains several technical updates, its overall approach leans toward expanding bureaucracy rather than streamlined administration. Now, I do have an amendment, and I would offer that now. Here you go. There is an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L33. Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L033 to House Bill 261113. To the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, this amendment would ensure that election-related emails sent by colleges and universities are strictly informational and cannot promote or oppose any candidate, voting issue, or political activity.

Any further discussion on L033? Senator Pelton.

Any further discussion, Senator Wallace?

Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have to remind you that we have already seen mailings go out that are partisan. And so this is going to – this amendment, L33, would ensure that that doesn't happen. And there's nothing wrong with making sure that these elections are fair and transparent and nonpartisan. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the voter rolls. keeping the voter rolls clean. So in section 13 of this bill begins this way. If an elector whose registration record is marked inactive fails to update their registration record, fails to respond to a confirmation card, and fails to vote in any election conducted by the county clerk and recorder during the time period that includes two consecutive general elections since the electorate's registration record was marked inactive, the Secretary of State shall cancel the electorate's registration record. Excuse me. What's being changed by this bill is the removal of the county clerk and recorders. Now we have some 64 of them across the state, county clerks and recorders. So county clerks and recorders certainly have the front-line ability to remove inactive voters, as does the Secretary of State. But what this bill does, in part, is to remove the county clerk and recorder's role in doing this. This is problematic for a couple reasons. One is county clerks and recorders are very effective at getting this done. In fact, the El Paso County calls their effort the gold standard for removing inactive voters from the rolls. Also, our overall registration rolls have not been clean and in fact have been, the state has been sued, the Secretary of State has been sued by Judicial Watch to remove over 300,000 inactive voters from the rolls and did so, but only after being sued. And as the president currently, the current administration, asks for information to help resolve all of the extra folks on Colorado voter rolls, there is a total lack of cooperation that comes as kind of a defiance coming from Secretary of State for that inquiry coming from the federal administration, who has interest, of course, in the federal portion of our elections. So all that to say, it does not make any sense. In fact, it seems like a very bad idea to exclude county clerks and recorders from the authority to also mark and inactive those registrations. So that's why I'm introducing this amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L34, Mendringor of Center Baisley.

Senator Weissman? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to ask for a no vote, and I think my co-prime sponsor, the senator from East Boulder County, will say more. But I want to zoom out here because this notion of voters improperly on the rolls, I think, is one of those ghosts that just sort of haunts this discussion space. Another senator spoke earlier to, I don't know, beliefs. what's really become troubling about this conversation of registration and voting again the fundament of our democracy is just beliefs that not only don't have evidence for them but are just persistently contravened dispelled by evidence by studies over and over and over and over again and they keep persisting. We have a federal law called NVRA, National Voter Registration Act. It sets some sideboards under which states have to operate. That goes back to 92 or 93. We then have the cancellation statute, which is the part of the bill at issue in this amendment. There is, and I believe the senator from Teller County had this version. we did actually do an amendment in the House to confirm that there is still a role for a county clerk in carrying out the functions of cancellation. That's the technical term. I want to back up and make sure that all members of the Senate understand that we actually have a number of interlocking protections against improper registration, and we're talking about registration now, so I'll focus there and won't go further on to voting, although I could. There is an affirmation required in connection with registration. It is a class one misdemeanor, a crime to falsely affirm. We have long had provisions in our law by which county clerks who have reason to believe that there has been a false affirmation are instructed, shall turn those over to the DA for investigation. One of the updates that we've done over time is NCOA, National Change of Address. This is the postal system of who's moving around and filling out the form to forward your mail. We didn't used to have the technological ability to run our voter database master essentially against that for update purposes, but now we do, and that has long since been in the law. We do have mechanisms within the sideboards of NVRA to cancel folks who truly should under the law be canceled. Again, you go inactive in any of the ways that that can happen. And then having become inactive you fail to vote for two consecutive elections and you don do anything in the middle that moves you back to active like just updating your registration or whatnot So we have mechanisms We are trying to somewhat standardize that mechanism in this part of the bill Folks need to understand that people do come off the voter rolls like you've moved or whatnot. And if you have passed, you actually come off the voter rolls a whole lot more quickly because monthly we run the voter master at the SOS against death records collected by CDPHE. But short of that, you know, if you have moved, if you've just decided, frankly, you're sick of politics and you're done voting, you go inactive, you stay inactive, you will come off the voter rolls. There are mechanisms for that. So I don't think this amendment is helpful or necessary. And more broadly in this conversation, I want to make sure that we don't give oxygen to the kind of falsehood that puts our election professionals, Democratic and Republican in danger. We have power, we have privilege, we have position here. People pay attention to the words that we say in this building and at this microphone. So I guess I haven't been too concerned by anything I've heard yet, but obviously we've seen what can happen when rhetoric gets out of control in the state and this country. So I am going to urge a no vote on this amendment. I'm also going to urge in the continued debate that we just be a little bit careful. Thank you.

Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I rise in support of Amendment 034. I also want to clarify some things as far as, number one, our elections are a matter of national security. It's critically important that they are secure and fair. And we must also keep this at the local level. As I had mentioned before, the Secretary of State has incrementally taken that power away at the local level. I mentioned about the election judges. Their power has decreased. And now we're seeing our county clerks. Their effectiveness is going to decrease. they know, as my colleague just mentioned, more about the elections at the local level than the Secretary of State. And as far as what's truth, I can tell you that there's a report out there. It's called the Colorado Canvassing Report. This was conducted by concerned citizens of Colorado, hundreds of them, bipartisan, Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated. We saw some inconsistencies in the election, and we were concerned. And I can tell you, this isn't hearsay, but we collected thousands of affidavits, affidavits that will hold up in court on these issues that people across Colorado saw. This report focused on... Issues. 9,000, over 9,000, where you had ballots that were sent to dead people. We spoke to a widow. Her husband had passed away 10 years ago, was still getting a ballot. and despite her going and trying to remove him from the rolls, was still on the rolls for 10 years. Ballots going to empty lots. Ballots going to corners and intersections. What I'm trying to say is obviously I had mentioned about the bloated voter rolls we need things to be more secure that's truth that's not falsehood this brings balance back to the local control where we need it where our county clerks can purge those inactive or inconsistent voter rolls. These are our elections. They're not the Secretary of State's. The power should belong to us. I urge a yes vote on Amendment 034. Thank you.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I appreciate the comments from the good Senator from Grand Junction who has experience as a county clerk and recorder. So I'll remind that all this amendment does is restore the authority for county clerks and recorders to be able to remove registrars who they know to be ineligible. It does not take anything away from the Secretary of State. an authority. In fact, it includes it. But Colorado relies on two primary systems to maintain voter rolls, the Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, and the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address Database. Those systems are fed into the state's voter database known as SCORE, Colorado's statewide voter registration database. Neither system is timely, comprehensive, or supportive of easy, error-free voter roll record changes by elections office personnel. In Colorado largest county El Paso county clerk Steve Schleicher and his election staff implemented a major process improvement aimed at reducing undeliverable ballots while making voter rolls more accurate and up and the goal was simple Reduce the number of ballots mailed to outdated addresses This improvement uses credit agency data to review voter rolls against more current residential or mailing addresses. Now, mail ballot voting carries significant costs tied to undeliverable ballots, ballots sent to addresses where the voter no longer resides, because the Postal Service returns those ballots to the county as undeliverable and charges the county for each one. counties pay that cost and then they must process the records these ballots which result in voters registration being flanked as inactive with reason quote undeliverable ballot unquote these voters are not mailed ballots in the next election and after two federal election cycles the record

Minority Leader Simpson.

Senator Liston.

Senator Wallace.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of amendment L34. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed no.

The noes have it, and that amendment is lost.

There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Pelton.

Senator Pelton.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So basically what happened was is a good idea that does well in counties like El Paso was not doing well in counties like or in districts like mine.

Senator Weissman.

the motion enforces the adoption of L44. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. The noes have it and that amendment is lost. To the bill, Senator Wallace.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L24?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The current bill language removed mechanisms for individual electors to challenge others' voter registration. This amendment will create a renewed process for such a challenge. I want to note that the removal of that language did not mean that there was not mechanisms to challenge or look over or review any number of voter registration challenges. There were processes for that, and many of those included criminal prosecution if you are registered inappropriately. We've seen that happen in this very building and have extreme consequences on members here. So there was not necessarily a need for this And I just want to give a little bit of voice to the fact that this was being used to sow discord in our elections to propagate racist ideologies and to say that our elections were being stolen while attempting to disenfranchise our neighbors. I think we should be careful as a body about how we allow for this to happen. But we concede the need for individuals to have this process. And so this amendment restores that. We ask for an aye vote.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this amendment. I'm also, I rise in support of this amendment. I think this is good for all of us. And I do appreciate the comments from the good senator from Longmont. and I appreciate that very much so I ask for a yes vote on L24

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a closing comment about the conversation and how easy it is to get, I don't know, trapped in one perspective or another and that somehow if you question the integrity you're at times, and without a doubt, I think voter rolls continue to be a place where there's a necessary need and opportunity for improvement, and I think bringing that up doesn't plant seeds of skepticism or undermining the process. It's a real reflection and reality that while we hold our system up as the gold standard, it isn't without opportunity for improvements. and to suggest that because you challenge those, you're instilling skepticism and undermining the system, I think is a bridge too far for me. We in this body can certainly have this debate and highlight where the shortcomings are, where the opportunities are, where we do well, and really create better policy and outcomes for people of Colorado, particularly in this space of voting integrity integrity and hope that we can all be supportive of the system that the processes that really hold our representative republic and our constitution together. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me

just to say a few words about this bill. You know, Colorado has one of the best election systems in the country because we've gone out of our way to make voting secure and easy, overcoming as many obstacles as possible, which keeps people from voting. People must have a valid ID to vote, and you can register online and even on election day itself. When you register, your ballot is mailed to you within weeks before the election day, so you have time to research the candidates and issues. You can return your ballot by mail, by ballot drop-off, and by going to the county clerk's office. Or you don't want to vote by mail, you can vote in person weeks before the election or on election day itself. Our system is good it secure and accurate Still there are ways we can improve Enter our House Bill 1113 thank you very much We can increase the number of polling locations and drop boxes If more places did what Colorado does to make elections secure and easy, this whole country would be widely better placed for everyone. Of course our vote matters. Every vote matters. Yet I still hear from some people a common complaint, why bother? My vote doesn't matter. Here's how we know that's not true. If your vote really didn't matter, then there wouldn't be so many people trying, working so hard to take that away from you. The right of Americans to vote is under attack throughout the country. In some states, like Colorado, the right to vote is protected, and attacks against voting are defeated. But in order, in other states the right to vote is being restricted. It's not only a state problem, it's a national problem. And House Bill 1113 is going to help improve that. So I stand and ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1113. Thank you.

Those opposed, no.

Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to layover House Bill 1322 until Monday, April, May the 4th.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Motion is to layover Senate Bill 115 to May 4th. All those in favor say aye.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to layover House Bill 1123 until Monday, May the 4th.

Motion is to lay over House Bill 1123 to May 4.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it, and that bill will lay over.

Senator Kipp. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move HB 26, 1346 and the finance committee report.

In the committee, we adopted an amendment that just said what we already, it was to express how something actually works because somebody felt like they needed to have it say that. So we did it.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

To the bill, Senator Kipp. So I think most of you anyway remember that we had a special session back in August. During that special session, we passed 1004 and 1006, which authorized lots and lots of tax credits to be sold at a discount. and because we've essentially put a lot on the market and we have not sold them all yet what we need to do is come back to you with this bill which basically allows a third party to finish buying up those tax credits so they can resell them later because we need to be made whole as a state before June 30th or we will be million out of balance So this is a really important bill to pass. I ask for your yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to build on my colleagues' comments, we also learned through this process that insurance companies and in the case of 1004C corporations, they're not really wanting to buy future years out. They would rather wait and see what their tax liability is going to be and then purchase a tax credit. And that was something we really weren't expecting, and I think despite even in addition to the saturation of tax credits being available all at once, that was another big factor. So a company would rather, an insurance company would rather pay a higher premium for those tax credits with a certainty that they can use them in that tax year. So you live and learn as you go. This would allow the third parties to capture or purchase all the unused tax credits and then go to market and sell them to insurance companies as they realize what their tax liability is going to be. So it's really no fiscal note, no impact. It just helps us to sell those remaining tax credits and put that money to good use in balancing our budget and supporting our health insurance enterprise. I ask for a yes vote.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm just trying to understand this. So all of these tax credits that we had last year or this year, we basically dumped them on the markets, kind of supply and demand. There was a big supply. There wasn't that big of a demand. And so the price that we were hoping to get went down. That's the way I understand it. Is that right? Supply and demand. And we had all these tax credits that we wanted to sell, and we put them out there on the market, and there wasn't enough of an appetite for the tax credits by the companies that wanted to buy them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the good Senator from Colorado Springs for that question. You're not exactly right, but you're on the right track. So in 1004, which the good senator from Loveland and I were sponsors of, we set a floor of 80%, because already we didn't want to interfere with the affordable housing tax credits that were out there. And if we went any lower, they might be more attractive to buyers. So it doesn't operate in a vacuum. So you're always looking at it. So we set that floor at around 80%. We expected first-year tax credits to be purchased. somewhere in the 90 range. I think they've averaged in the low to mid 80s so far. That is partially because we did, 1,006 originally was funded with unclaimed property trust fund. That switched over to the same tax credit market we were working in. So yes, I don't think we anticipated the market being saturated at that level. But really just as important is the fact that many of these companies don't want to take the risk of buying tax credits two, three years down the road when they don't know what their earnings and what their tax liability is going to be. So I think it's been a learning process for us, but this bill would allow those third party to come in, purchase the underpriced, claim tax credits and then have them available to sell to the companies as they learn what their tax liability will be.

Minority Leader Simpson.

Thank you Mr Chair Any further discussion Senator Frizzell Thank you Mr Chair I just wanted to get up and say a few words I too was in the

these tax credits are being essentially sold through a middleman this advantaged capital They make a 1 commission on this And they were in the committee hearing and so it became a little questionable It's like, okay, well, what is their role going forward? Because the idea of this bill is that we are going to just sell the remaining tax credits, I got it right that time. For whatever the average price is at that point, right now it's around 82 cents on the dollar. And so that's what this entity, whoever it ends up being, would purchase all of them for, and then they would sell them down the road and perhaps get a better price for the tax credits because they'd be able to hold on to them until those insurance companies needed them. And I think, am I going, I've got it going? Okay, good. I'm so glad I didn't mess that up. So this is the thing. And so there was a little concern because, gosh, are we, is this Advantage Capital going to be the entity that's going to buy the bonds at 82 cents on the dollar? the same company that has been responsible for those transactions over the last however many months since last August. I don't have that math in me right now. So that's a question, because is that a conflict of interest? What does that look like? Good to hear and good to know that there would be a new RFP going out for a bridge purchaser. So I was really personally really happy about that. So I wanted to kind of put that out there because I think this is important information. It could be Advantage Capital, but it doesn't have to be. It's whoever really gets that contract for purchase of the tax credits whenever that RFP is completed. There's a lot of this is a very nuanced situation. and one that I think that we should be keenly aware of. And again, hopefully have some lessons learned, because I don't think that this is the last time we see this method of raising a lot of money. We do this fairly, I don't think it's unusual for smaller amounts of money, but again, this was hundreds of millions of dollars that we were trying to raise quickly so that we could plug some holes in last year's budget. I am still very uncomfortable with the premise. I still disagree with the premise. I voted no in committee on this particular bill because I'm not really clear why we can't just go ahead and try to open this up to, sorry, other entities besides insurance companies other than the fact that that was what was stipulated in last year's legislation, but that's my opinion, and I'm sure that the bill sponsors have a great answer for that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I was in committee and heard this bill, and it was quite confusing. And what I think happened and why I good with this bill is that in the special session when they created the ability to purchase these tax credits for the premium tax that insurance companies paid We did that assuming that the universe of people that, of entities that would purchase these were just insurance companies. We set it up for that. We never envisioned that that universe might not be able to handle all of these tax credits. And sure enough, they couldn't because they weren't going to buy tax credits before they figured out how much tax they owed because they would just be holding on to this and have paid out money for it. And even though I think it could be carried forward as far as 2033, they could be holding on to it for quite some time. And when you set up tax credits, I think it was just an oversight in the interim committee. Most tax credits have an ability to be transferred. Think of a tax credit, EV tax credit for a car. You know, you've seen the commercials. You go in and buy your car. You get your tax credit up front because that credit, even though it's yours, the consumers, you transfer it to the company you bought the car from. And that's been going on for years and years to be able to transfer these tax credits. The initial bill never thought of that and never put it in there. So when these tax credits were not sold, even though the sale of them was thought about and we used it for budget balancing, that that was a mistake. mistake. So we found out that, and what this bill does, it widens the universe of who can buy these tax credits to a third party. And there was an RFI done or something was done in order to select the entity that is going to purchase those. They will purchase it, put money up front, which solves our budget balancing issue. and then they will resell it to the insurance companies that pay the premium tax credits as needed. And so however they sell it, whether it's for 80 cents on the dollar or up to, they talked about, even 95 cents on the dollar, they run a risk and they are willing to take that risk. Their initial commissions were being paid, it's my understanding, out of the $3 million plus appropriation that was done for administrative costs in the special session bill. So there's no additional cost to have this third party come in and buy these credits, help us balance the budget, and then sell them. and they will set the price for what they sell it for so they can make a little more or a little less. That's their risk. So I think this helps both sides. The third-party company, they were there, they testified, they were willing to do that. They may earn something on it. They may lose something on it. But they're willing to take that risk. It gets us out of our budget hole. And so I think this is nothing any of us wanted to do. but it's a good bill, and I would urge you to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard this bill in committee, House Bill 1346, and I just wanted to raise some awareness as to why I voted the way I did. The bill sponsors I'd be surprised about my takeaways here. I feel like the initial offering of $200 million in tax credits on the part of the state government to try to balance its cash needs was a little bit crazy, bananas. Trying to finance a current deficit with credit card interest is a little bit nuts. And the structure of the original bill was confined down to a market of health insurance credits, insurance credits. And so we could have widened that out and easily sold through our inventory of tax credits, but we narrowed it up, reduced our market, and offered it in that space. And the simple law here of supply and demand is that the more product you have out there, the lower the price is going to be. Supply. The more supply, the lower the price. The less supply, the higher the price. So what we're stuck with here is we sold through about 75% of our inventory. We have about 25% left, and we don't have a demand for that 25%. So what are we going to do? We're going to contract with someone outside to help us sell through that last 25%. I see it. It happens every day in retail. Every day. Retail outlets are stuck with inventory that they can't sell. And so they hire someone to buy the lot off of them for less dollars than they would have if they would have just kept it on the shelf. So totally understand this. This is a total market economics principle. And so I understand the flushing of inventory and the method that we're going about it. And I just have to say that it's too bad that we got ourselves into this in the first place by oversupplying with tax credits and restricting the buyers in the first place. I feel like the lesson learned here is to maybe make better choices with regard to how we try to fundraise down the road. So just wanted to make those points to the bill. Vote how you will. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. and for the sponsors. I don't think we talked about this in the committee. If we did, I'm sorry I missed it, and it's probably in the bill, but the two bills from summer session last year I think had a five-year redemption period. The credits had to be consumed in five years. Since we're selling this block of whatever it is, $40 million, $30 million, whatever the number is, we're going to sell to a third party, was it in the bill that what we sell to the third party also has to be redeemed in the same five-year period, or do they sit there potentially for a longer period of time? I just don't recall.

No, we don't need to change that. These, again, will be sold. Just selling them a year or two or three years out was more complicated because people don't know how much money they have or what their tax liability will be. So we don't think there's any issue with selling them later. But again, the company that resells them, they're going to hold on to that risk. It's just the way it works. So I appreciate that. Yeah, we're not going to go out further.

The ayes have it House Bill 1346 is adopted The clerk please read the title of House Bill 1252 House Bill 1252 by Representatives Bradfield Morrow and Senators Marchman and Carson concerning updates to the state entities responsible for responding to emergency situations.

To the committee report.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion enforces the adoption of the SVMA committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The aye has it, and all opposed no. The aye has it, and the committee report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Marchman.

Will the clerk please read L5? Amendment L5.

To the amendment.

Any discussion? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of L5. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. You guys have it, and that amendment is adopted.

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank my co-frame from Highlands Ranch for joining this bill with me. I'm not going to repeat what he said, but I will say the reason I decided to jump on this bill was primarily because it does exempt the information and data that is on a public disaster survival portal from public information requests. I think people who are going through crises don need to be hit with all kinds of vendor requests and other things and I hope that going forward this will prove very helpful for Coloradans in protecting their privacy Is there any further discussion

Will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1010? House Bill 1010 by Representative Wilford and Jackson and Senators Danielson concerning increasing support for older adults in the workforce.

To the committee report.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of the business, labor, and technology committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion of force is the adoption of House Bill 1010. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1010 is adopted.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for the delay. We are here on behalf of Senate Bill 177, which is a bill that came from a constituent of mine who had a problem where his house was falling down and he needed to repair the roof, but he couldn't do that without getting onto his neighbor's roof, and his neighbor refused to let him on the property. and so he had gone back and forth with the neighbor for years spent $30,000 on this. This is a thing that happens from time to time you know disputes against neighbors and we hope that they work themselves out and I think in 99% of cases they work themselves out but Colorado doesn't have a law like a lot of other states do that says if you have a neighbor who refuses to let you do needed repairs on your property then you can go to court and petition and have a hearing and present evidence, and the judge can grant you the limited ability just to go on your neighbor's property to do something like prevent your house from falling down. So encourage an aye vote. This is a thing that, you know, disputes against neighbors comes up a lot. I think disputes that are this serious don't, but we want to make sure that we have something in law when things get so serious that parties have to come to litigation.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On that note, Senator Benavides, I'm sorry, the good senator from Adams County discussed the amendment that we ran in committee. So on that note, I'd first like to move the Judiciary Committee report.

To the committee report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just described the changes made to committee. It was to add mediation and encourage parties to work this out before coming to court. And I would ask for an aye vote. I move Senate Bill 177 and the Associated Judiciary Committee report.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we heard this bill in committee. I do have concerns. I mean, property rights do exist for a reason. It's also to, if you don't want people on your property, to not have people on your property. So I think it opens up a can of worms. like I said, have concerns. I also know that when you purchase property and if there's, there's, what do you call it, easements or where you know you have to have a neighbor get on their property and have access to your property, that is in the papers that you agree to. And in the case where if that neighbor happens to move, those agreements are also in those documents. So I'm really hesitant on SB 177, and I would urge a no vote on it.

Will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1343? House Bill 1343 by Representatives Morrow and Clifford and Senator Marchman. Concerning expanding the use of electronic processes and proceedings involving administrative determinations and in connection therewith, expanding the use of electronic filing related to the competency of criminal defendants

All right, to the committee report.

Clerk, please read the title of House Bill 1143. House Bill 1143 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph and Senator

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of House Bill 1143. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1143 is adopted.

concerning an updated clean energy plan from a municipally owned utility. Senator Snyder. Mr. Chair, I move Senate Bill 26182.

Senator Snyder. Yes. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this whole process has been a long, months-long negotiation between environmental groups, Colorado Springs Utilities, the governor's office. this amendment is the same thing. So L-001, did we move the amendment? Yes. Okay, thank you. Makes us basically a bunch of non-substantive technical changes to the bill at the request of CDPHE and with agreement with Colorado Springs Utilities Sierra Club Governor's Office. Specifically this amendment clarifies the CEP verification process for municipally owned utilities by removing the unnecessary references of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission As you may know, municipal utilities are not governed by the PUC. Just wanted to clarify that. It clarifies that APCD, the Air Pollution Control Division, does not require municipal utilities to pay the cost of verification. So we actually in the original bill had that the municipal utility would pay for any additional costs incurred. Apparently that ran afoul of home rule and some other rules. So we took that out at the request of CDPHE. There's a technical language to clarify that the Air Quality Control Commission rules on coal retirement plans will not conflict with the intent of this bill. And finally, it relocates the provisions of future emission reduction planning from Title 25, which is a CDPHE title, to Title 31, which is the Home Rule City one. So, and then there's a little bit of conforming language. So it really is a technical cleanup, non-substantive amendment, and we would ask for a yes vote.

the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted to the bill mr minority leader thank you madam chair so this has been a interesting uh journey that really did start last summer at some point in time and i characterized it as commit in committee this is like the third bite of the apple at this space and it really has to do with the retirement of the ray nixon power plant car springs utilities operates south of springs i see it every every trip home to alamosa i drive right by the power plant so um utility offered in its integrated resource plan several years ago a retirement date for this coal-fired power plant it became painfully obvious for a number of reasons over the summer that this was really not a viable retirement date not without sacrificing both reliability of the THE SYSTEM FOR SPRINGS UTILITIES, BUT ALSO THE COST TO THE RATE PAYERS. IT WAS ABUNDANLY EVIDENT THEY WERE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS WERE. IMAGINE THAT, CREATING A PLAN IN 2022 OUT TO 2029 THAT SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD BECAME PROBLEMATIC IN DELIVERING THOSE RESULTS. SO THE GOOD CENTER FROM CULTURE SPRINGS AND I OFFERED A bill early in the session at an attempt to take the second bite at this apple of retirement of a coal-fired power plant and ran into some headwinds and some challenges. But to the credit, the Goods Center from Colorado Springs largely took on this conversation and compromise and discussion and stakeholder meeting. I mean, it's in his county and in his backyard and deals with it on a day-to-day basis much more so than I do. But out of the introduction, out of the bill that was introduced came, actually we ended up, there was either a consideration of a strike below or we actually P.I.'d that bill and offered this bill for your consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to my colleague for really summing it up greatly there. You know, there's a lot going on here. Somewhere between the 2021 filing of their clean energy plan and 2024 when they went out to bid, they somehow got off track on their climate goals. And it's true. When they went out to bid in 2024, renewables were coming at 50% to 60% higher cost. That's not the whole story. I'm not exactly sure what the rest of the story is, but the truth is they did get a little bit off track from their stated goals. And, of course, a lot of folks have emailed, well, don't benefit them for not living up to their promises or from not really being aggressive. They took their foot off the gas. But I think you have to recognize, municipal utilities are quite different from investor-owned utilities. So if an XL or somebody like that finds that they have unexpected costs, you know, they have a lot of options. First of all, they're a multi-state provider. They're at least six times larger than Colorado Springs Utilities with gross revenues of around $15, $16 billion a year. Colorado Springs Utilities is about $3 billion a year. What I'm saying is they have all that flexibility. CSU, Colorado Springs Utility, has no ability to go to their shareholders and say, look, I'm sorry, but your dividend's taken a haircut this year because we've had some unexpected costs. Any costs incurred by Colorado Springs utilities, they have one option, increased rates on ratepayers. And that, in a time of intense affordability discussions going on, I could not see taking the risk of running ratepayers' rates up 30% to 50% more than they already are. so I think it's important to understand the most salient point of this this coal plant will not be open a second longer than it needs to be and it has a drop dead date that it has to close of December 31st 2032 and I'm looking forward I want to make we hit I think we've hit that real balance between affordability and not hitting our rate payers you know El Paso County has a number one is number one in the state for people that take advantage of leap assistance Colorado Springs own program Project COPE also has high subscription We have a lot of folks and those are the folks if we don have some relief and have a plan forward that are really going to suffer the most And if you look at this bill, it has a lot of aspirations and a lot of holding their feet to the fire. So not just are we allowing the extension of the coal plant for a couple years, but they're committing to making 95% of their portfolio in renewables by 2039, which is ahead of the current schedule where we have 90% renewables required by 2040. So it's a real good balance. And finally, you know, sometimes a good compromise is one that nobody loves, but everybody can live with. I think that's what we've accomplished with 182, and I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair and members, I rise in support of Senate Bill 182. I won't belabor the good comments from my colleague from El Paso County in Manitou Springs and the good Senator from Alamosa who drives by the Ray Nixon power plant at least once or twice a week coming and going. And for those of you who have not been to the Ray Nixon plant, I have not only driven by it, I've been in the plant extensively from literally from top, from bottom to top all the way. There was a whole group of us last September, two or three of my legislative colleagues had an excellent tour of the facility. and I can assure you that the management and the good employees of the Colorado Springs utilities are doing their utmost as a citizen who's lived in Colorado Springs now for going on 59 years. We all want a clean environment. I haven't found anybody that says, I want to see brown smoke and dirty air. If that person is around, I'd like to meet them. but I know that Colorado Springs Utilities has done an excellent job over the years. I remember, and it wasn't that too many years ago, some of you might remember, when you would come to the top of Monument Hill and you'd look down into kind of the basin of Colorado Springs and you would see literally the smog and the so-called brown cloud that was backed up against the foothills. and over the years Colorado Springs Utilities working with all parties involved have done a great job. You don't see that brown cloud anymore. You literally don't when you're at the top of Monument Hill. You can see from the top of Monument Hill really as far as you can see all the way down to Cheyenne Mountain and if you can see it on a direct line you might even be able to see the Nixon Power Plant. But having been in the Nixon power plant extensively, not once, but really three times myself, this bill, I know I trust what I've read about it, will do an excellent job to ensure that Colorado Springs Utilities meets their clean energy standards, because we want to do it, and we will do it. We'll do a great job. and who knows, you all know that I've and many of you have been a proponent for clean, safe, reliable nuclear energy. There is lots of land down there for a small module reactor or whatever, maybe the city fathers might come to realize that there may be a role, not maybe, there probably will be a role in the future of Colorado Springs Utilities for some sort of a nuclear facility, whether it's at the Ray Nixon Power Plant or somewhere else, I don't know. But anyways, I want to commend the sponsors and particularly the stakeholders, the Colorado Springs Utilities, the environmental groups and the citizens of Colorado Springs that have listened and learned and worked hard to reach an agreeable compromise. And the byword we hear all the time is affordability. Well, this will give the affordability. I'm a rate payer. I pay my utility bill every single month, and I see it and I look at it in detail. and all of us want to have affordability on our utilities and this will help keep it as affordable as possible, as clean as possible, and it's a win-win situation. So I urge an eye and a strong support for Senate Bill 182.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this was a bill that I heard in my committee as well. As I think they mentioned, this is an offshoot of Senate Bill 22 that was, you know, obviously entered in very early on in the process. And the lights are out. That's it. I hear you. Okay. I hear you. But my concern on this is, as we heard testimony from lobbyists and executives for it, they talked about how much they had been working in unison to come to a compromise from 22 to the new 182. and I come to find out that the grassroots, the people who actually live outside of these power plants, who live within the district there and have been a part of the conversation from the very beginning, were somehow left out of the conversation. We did have one woman who came and explained, you know, she had two kids and was trying to work her way through and she didn't even know about 182 while I had heard several panels talking about how their outreach was so extensive, but somehow it missed these grassroots people. So I was a no that day. I will be a no moving forward. Since then, I've gotten several emails from like-minded people who have been left out of this conversation. They don't have lobbying groups. They have kids and minivans that they move around in, but they still would like to have clean air and clean water in their district.

Aye.

Mr Majority Leader Thank you Madam Chair I move to lay over House Bill 1226 until Monday May the 4th The motion is to lay over House Bill 1226 until Monday May the 4th All those

You ready to rock, y'all? Mr. Schaffler, please excuse Senator Kerkmeyer. And I probably couldn't have done that yet because I hadn't came back to order. So it will come to order. Now, Mr. Schaffler, please excuse Senator Kerkmeyer.

May 1st, 2026. Mr. President and Committee, the whole begs leave to report to the senator in consideration of the following tax bills being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendation thereof. Senator Bill 177 as amended. Senator Bill 182 as amended. Passed on second reading. Order engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1113 as amended house bill 1346 as amended house bill 1252 as amended house bill 1010 as amended house bill 1343 as amended house bill 1143 passed on second reading in order to revise and place in the calendar for third reading of final passage senate bill 68 house bill 1322 senate bill 115 house bill 1123 house bill 1226 house bill 1210 laid over until may 4th 2026 and retaining their

There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, please read S-001, House Bill 1113. Amendment S-001, Senator Bazley.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this reminder, this is regarding the removal from House Bill 1113 of the authority of county clerks and recorders to clean up the voter rolls and focusing all of that power on the Secretary of State. So I ask for a yes vote on 001. And please move 001. 001, which I move. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. As was mentioned, I appreciate the good Senator for the conversation as well as all of the members this morning for the conversation on this bill. As was mentioned during the debate a restoration of powers for the clerks is not needed because they continue to be incorporated into this system and play a fundamental role in how we assess the voter rolls and remove any inactive voters they do the work of that exclusion the Secretary of State office simply has an automated process to get through it so we ask for a no vote That's a proper motion, and we may take a senator. We will take a senatorial five.

Thank you.

Senators, Wallace, Danielson, Cutter, Gonzalez, Marchman, Kip, Amabile, Benavides, Judah, Doherty, Snyder Wallace again Henrickson Weissman Ball Sullivan Mr. Majority Leader Colker Lindstedt Exum Mullica Bridges Roberts Please add the president. With a vote of 11 ayes, 23 no, 0 absent and 1 excuse. S-O-0-1 is lost.

No vote on the committee of the whole report. Senator Rich. Zamora Wilson. Frizzell. Carson, Catlin, with a vote of 28 ayes, 6 no, 0 absent, 1 excuse, community report is adopted. Senate Bill 177 is amended, 182 is amended, passed, second bill 1113 is amended, 1346 is amended, 1252 is amended, 1010 is amended, 1343 is amended, 1143 passed, second bill 168, House Bill 1322, Senate Bill 115, House Bill 1123, 1226, 1210, later over to 5-4, 2026 pertaining to place on the calendar.

Senatorial 5.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam President. I move a call of the Senate.

Senators, Amabile, Amabile, Faisley, Ball, Benavidez, Bridges. Bright. Carson. Catlin. Cutter. Oh, Coleman. Woo! I always want to do that. Cutter. Danielson. Doherty. Danielson. Doherty. Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Hendrickson. Judah. Judah. Kip. Colker. Linstead. Liston. Marchman. Mullica. Pelton B. T Darryl The the Rich Roberts Rodriguez Simpson Snyder Sullivan Wallace. Weissman. Zamora Wilson. Amabile. Amabile. Ball.

The motion is to raise the call. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the call is raised. Okay, Mr. Majority Leader.

Okay, we're going to take up the special order. The motion is to take up the special order's consent calendar, which is Bill 175, at 1 p.m. And it requires a two-thirds vote. All in favor say aye. Aye.

The Senate will take up special orders consent calendar at, what time is it? 1 p.m. And Senator Exum will take the chair. Oh, no, sorry. Sorry.

Thank you. The motion is to take up a special order second reading of bills on the consent calendar. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no.

Senate Bill 175 by Senators Snyder and Catlin and Representative Morrow and Richardson concerning the adjustment of an employer's experience, modification factor, and workers' compensation.

Thank you Seeing no further discussion the motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 175 on the consent calendar All those in favor say aye Aye All opposed say no The ayes have it That bill is adopted Majority Leader Rodriguez Thank you Mr Chair I move the committee to rise and report Thank you The motion is for the committee to rise and report All those in favor say aye Aye All opposed say no No The have it and the committee will rise and report

May 1st, 2026. Mr. President, the committee of the whole begs leave to report and has had under consideration the following attached bill and be in the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendation thereon. Senator Bill 175. Pass on second reading. Ordered engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading. Final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the report. The motion is optioned for the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0, no, 0, absent, and one excused, the committee of the whole report is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate take up special order of second reading of bills, which consists of Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 1109 at the hour of 11. at an hour of 1.03 p.m.

Aye.

Senator Exum. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate resolve itself and the committee of the whole for consideration of special orders, second reading of the bill's calendar. You've heard the motion.

The committee will come to order, and the court rule is relaxed. Mr. Schoffer, please read the title of Senate Bill 3.

Senator Cutter. Senator Wallace.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us and the motion before us is the adoption of the Transportation and Energy Committee report to Senate Bill 3. All those in favor say aye. All opposed to say no, the ayes have it, and that committee report is adopted. To the Appropriations Committee Report, Senator Wallace.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion be forced to adopt the adoption of the Appropriations Committee Report to Senate Bill 3. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say no The ayes have it And the appropriations committee report is adopted To the bill Senator Wallace Thank you Mr Chair I have an amendment There is an amendment at the desk Thank you. Mr. Schaffer, please read the title to Amendment L-005. Amendment L-005.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment clarifies language in the bill that the state of battery health can be assessed on hybrid vehicles through an onboard diagnostic tool. I ask for an aye vote.

Yes, thank you. I move L-005. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for your consideration of Senate Bill 3. We want to thank all of the stakeholders, including environmental advocates, vehicle manufacturers, battery recyclers, and small businesses that dismantle vehicles for their diligence in creating a legislative solution that establishes first-in-the-nation critical mineral recovery rates for recycling electric vehicle batteries. These conversations took place hand-in-hand with the auto industry to ensure their perspectives were incorporated into this program and have thus brought about a bill that is now supported by a broad set of key industry partners, including General Motors, the Alliance for Automative Innovation, and the Automative Recyclers Association. As I previously mentioned, the path we have chosen for the proposed program is formatted to significantly reduce costs of administration through a streamlined program design, thus providing for lower fees for stakeholders and less costs to the state. The first three years of initial program fees are written in statute to cover costs. The fee for following years will be created within rulemaking with the intention being that automakers who have more market share and handle more unwanted batteries will pay higher fees. Thus, each manufacturer will pay proportionately to their involvement in the program. By deploying a forced-in-the-nation policy framework that requires vehicle manufacturers to collect unwanted batteries, we will support the manufacturers, local vehicles dismantlers, and the state, all while ensuring the vehicles moving us towards lower carbon emissions are responsibly managed and do not create unintended environmental harm. Again, we are so proud of the work of this coalition and share sincere gratitude with the auto manufacturers, Western resource advocates, Union of Concerned Scientists, and each stakeholder that have brought us this far. This legislation is a meaningful step toward building a truly circular economy where valuable materials are recovered, reused, and kept in circulation rather than discarded. As we confront the growing urgency of climate change, policies like this ensure that the transition to cleaner technologies is not only effective in reducing emissions, but also responsible in how it manages resources. Electric vehicles are a cornerstone of a green economy, but their long-term sustainability depends on how we handle the full life cycle of their components, especially critical minerals in their batteries. By leading on battery recycling and recovery, Colorado is demonstrating that environmental stewardship, economic innovation, and industry collaboration can go hand in hand. This is how we create a resilient, low-carbon future where progress does not come at the expense of our environment, but actively works to protect it for generations to come. With deep gratitude to all involved and excitement for what this legislation will mean, not just for Colorado, but for our nation and this industry, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my co-prime sponsor on this, the lovely Senator from Boulder County. I've worked on zero waste and circular economy issues for the entire eight years I've been here. Encouraging less packaging, making sure recycling is paid for by the folks creating the trash that we have, the elements that are still usable, put back into our economy so that they're not just wasted. And all this is paid for, the recycling, not by our constituents or local governments. Landfills are one of the primary emitters of methane, and landfills use land, cost money to maintain properly. There's a cost to everything, and as we move to a clean energy future, we cannot fail to plan for the end of life for the things that are moving us towards that future. That would be disingenuous and irresponsible. Tens of thousands of electric vehicles are already on the roads in Colorado, and more are expected over the next decade. This means there will invariably be increases in EV retirements. as those vehicles reach their end of life. The state needs a framework now, and so we're on our toes when these vehicles come off the road, ensuring their batteries can be handled efficiently, safely, and sustainably. As we deploy, increasing numbers of these vehicles is important that their batteries are handled properly and considered for second-life applications, like reuse or repurposing, ensures their economic and environmental benefits are maximized. One of the benefits that electric vehicles have over other vehicles is that the critical minerals contained within their batteries are incredibly recyclable. And if we ensure they're collected and properly, only if we ensure they're collected and properly managed. But if they're improperly stored in vehicle scrap yards, they can be a hazard, actually a pretty significant hazard. And I want to remind us all that our fire protection districts are already underfunded and under-resourced. So it's important that we minimize that if we can. We want the critical minerals contained in the batteries of our vehicles today to power the vehicles of tomorrow as well, reducing the environmental footprint of electric vehicles, which is already much better than traditional vehicles, while generating local economic benefits and reducing the need for critical minerals from foreign countries. We don't want them sitting in landfills or scrapping yards. This is what the bill aims to do. And it's just another opportunity for Colorado to display its leadership in the transition to a more sustainable transportation sector towards a zero-waste future and a more robust circular economy. So this bill is the result of months of stakeholding between advocates and all impacted parties, and it involves lots of give and take. It is likely to be emulated in other states because of all the significant work done by all of the stakeholders. And I'm really proud to be part of this huge step forward, SB 26003. And we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the sponsors. I rise in support of 003. I'm not sure what the conversations were like. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for a bill with number 003. Here we are on day 108, an introduced bill, a strike below in transportation, and then another strike below in appropriations. It's a tribute, I think, to the tenacity and the effort recognizing we can't just turn a blind eye or bury our head in the sand what we going to do with these propulsion batteries going forward So I applaud the effort and I can say you know I would have thought maybe the auto industry would have been in my office going please help us, but they weren't. I think they must have ended up supportive of the concept to create a path forward where, again, we don't just dispose of these propulsion batteries, end up in landfills as a horrible outcome. And I do appreciate the connection to critical minerals. As a mining engineer, I have a deep appreciation for how we can minimize the impact on the environment and supplies by really an effective, thoughtful, engaged recycle or refurbish or whatever we're going to do in that space and reduce our demand for those critical minerals that largely come from outside the United States. So an interesting policy. Again, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall how these conversations unfolded, given the fact there were two strike blows to the Senate Bill 003, and again, we're in Day 108. So I appreciate the sponsor's tenacity in this space and rise in support of 003.

Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1109 and the community report.

We made an amendment that just drew the oversight into the proper place and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you all know, interpretation services for the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind community are absolutely critical for every part of their lives, whether it's a medical visit or a hearing in the state capitol, for example, which I should bring up. It helped to illustrate the purpose of this bill. What we're doing is commissioning a study to see whether or not interpreters need licensure eventually. Right now they can get credentialed, but it doesn't mean that they're all qualified or providing quality interpretation. during the committee hearing there was an interpreter on the zoom who couldn't interpret for one of the witnesses trying to participate in the hearing about quality interpreters it was demonstrative of the reason we need to do this study to figure out what can the community do to address the lack of quality interpreters or what else needs to happen and i'll also just highlight briefly that this was drawn to particular attention during the pandemic and immediately following because a lot of the interpretation services went online. And so when you can, you can see where you're getting interpreters from out of state all over the country or right here in Denver the quality will be very different because the qualifications and the licensure and the certifications are all different So we should figure out what best serves the community here in Colorado and then act accordingly in subsequent legislative sessions This bill just authorizes the study. And so I urge an aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

The majority leader is fined $1 that I will pay because we took too long to get back to the chamber. Way too long. Senator Exum.

The motion is adopted to the whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34-I-0, no-0, absolute excuse, can be the whole report is adopted. Senate Bill 003 is amended to pass, second meeting, or gross place, counted for third meeting, and final passage of House Bill 1109 is amended to pass, second meeting, or revised place, counted for third meeting, and final passage. Consideration of House Amendments.

Thank you. Thank you. .

Ah, yes. Consideration of House amendments and Senate bills. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 51.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members, I make motion that we concur with the House amendments. Please tell us why, Senator Liston.

And I'll let my good colleague, the senator from Denver, explain the minor changes. Thank you.

Senator Liston.

Senator Fall. Thank you, Mr. President. That's correct, as my co-prime sponsor stated. There was a strike below amendment in the House, but it actually didn't change as much as it looks like. They added a legislative declaration, and then we brought together, we had heard some concerns from the open source community in Colorado, and so we brought together a group of folks from the open source community and cybersecurity experts to make some really relatively small changes to how the bill works make sure it workable make sure liability doesn fall on anyone who contributing their time in the open source community but doesn't fundamentally change the bill and ask for an aye vote on the motion to concur.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move for the repassage of Senate Bill 26051 as amended by the House. and ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 132. Senate Bill 132 by Senators Roberts and Carson Representative Joseph Nsoper concerning a requirement that a law enforcement officer offer a voluntary preliminary screening test for alcohol to a driver and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Senator Roberts.

Please tell us why.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the Senate concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 132. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 33 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absolute excuse, that motion is adopted.

Very good. Senior for discussion of motion is the passage, repassage, Senate Bill 132. Are there any no votes? Senator Basley. Senator Basley is an aye vote. With a vote of 33 I 0 0 0 absent to excuse Senate Bill 132 is repassed. No sponsors. Consideration of Governor's Appointments Consent Calendar. Mr. Schaffler, please read the appointments listed on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the appointments on consideration of Governor's appointments consent calendar, which is Lauren Cavame of Arvada and Jessica Klachy of Louisville for the Colorado Health Facilities Authority Board of Directors, Diane Baird of Denver, Chris Jones of Boulder, and David Averill of Telluride for the Clean Transit Enterprise.

Members of the Transportation Commission, effective July 2, 2025 for terms expiring July 1, 2029, Barbara McLaughlin of Durango, Colorado to serve as a commissioner from the 8th Transportation District appointed Terry Hart of Pueblo, Colorado to serve as a commissioner from the 10th Transportation District reappointed For terms expiring July 1st, 2029 Diane Barrett of Denver, Colorado to serve as a commissioner from the 1st Transportation District appointed Carl Castillo of Boulder, Colorado to serve as a commissioner from the 4th Transportation District Occasioned by the resignation of Elise Jones of Boulder, Colorado appointed Senator Cutter

Is there further discussion? Further discussion?

Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the appointment of the members of the Transportation Commission. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 33 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent to excuse, those appointments are confirmed. Following persons, Barbara McLaughlin, Terry Hart, Diane Barrett, and Carl Castillo are appointed to the Transportation Commission.

Message from the House. We suck. The House is adopted and transmits herewith. House joint resolution 1030 as printed in House Journal May 1st, 2026. The House is passed on third reading and returns herewith. Senate Bill 143 and Senate Bill 124. The House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisor of Statutes. House Bill 1421, amended as printed in House Journal April 30, 2026. Message from the Revisor. We hear with transmit without comment as amended, House Bill 1421. Introduction of resolutions. Mr. Schaffler, please get a title of SR009. Senate Resolution 009 by Senator Simpson concerning ALS Awareness Month.

Which resolution? 009.

The motion is to layover SR009 to Thursday, May 7th, 2026. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. You guys have it. SR009 will layover until Thursday, May 7th, 2026. Oh! Signing of bills. Hold on. Signing of bills is signing.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move for the reconsideration of Senate Bill 51.

Senate Bill 51 by Senators Ball enlisted and Representative Paschal and Ricks concerning age attestation for users of computing devices.

The motion is to repassage of Senate Bill 51. Are there any no votes? Senators, Marchman, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Amabile, Sullivan, Colker, Roberts, Baisley, With a vote of 25 ayes, 8 noes, 0 absinthe excuse, Senate Bill 51 is repassed. No sponsors. No announcements, Senatorial 5. Thank you. Thank you.

The motion is that the Senate take up that bill at the hour of 1.44 p.m. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Pose no. The ayes have it. The Senate will take up that bill at the hour of 1.44 p.m. Special orders. Second reading of bills.

Is it consent? Senator Wiseman.

On that note, Mr. President, I move the Senate take up Senate Bill 1324, House Bill 1324 on special order second reading of bills at the hour of 145 p.m. The motion is to take up that bill at the hour of 144, 45.

Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I move the Senate to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of special orders.

I'LL TAKE THE CHAIR. NO SCRIPT. I'LL GIVE YOU SOME OF THAT.

HOUSE BILL 1324 BY REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK AND GILCHRIS AND SENATOR DOGERTY CONCERNING REGULATION OF THE DIVISION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN A 2025 SUSSET REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES.

majority leader thank you mr. chair I move that house bill 1324 be referred to the approach

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and considered one bill.

May 1, 2026. Mr. President, your committee that Holbeck's leave to report has had under consideration the following attached bill will be in the second reading thereof. It makes the following recommendation thereon. House Bill 1324, referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

There is one announcement, Mr. Majority Leader, coming up. Senator Sullivan.

Granted.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Majority Leader.

You hear the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The I's having a Senate recess until 2.30 p.m. today.