Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 071

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, liberty, justice for all.

Representatives Bacon. Thank you. AML Bacon is excused. Barone. Basinecker. Speaker pro tem Basinecker. Excused. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Representative Bradley. Excused. Brooks. Representative Brooks. Excuse. Brown. Caldwell. Minority Leader Caldwell. Excuse. Camacho. Carter. Clifford. DeGraff. Duran. Majority Leader Duran. Excuse. English. Representative English. Excuse. Espinoza. Representative Espinoza. Excuse. Foray. Representative Foray. Excuse. Flanel. Froelich. Rep Froelich. Excuse. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Representative Johnson is excused. Joseph. Kelty. Representative Kelty is excused. Leader. Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Representative Marshall is excused. Martinez. Mauro. McCormick. Wynn Representative Wynn is excused Paschal Phillips Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks is excused. Rutanel. Ryden. Sirota. Rep. Sirota is excused. Slaw. Smith. Soper. Stuart K. Stuart R. Story. Sukla. Taggart. Titone. Representative Titone is excused. Valdez A. Velasco. Representative Velasco is excused. Weinberg. Wilford. Rep. Wilford is excused. Winter. Woodrow. Woog. Zokai. Who's here?

With 52 present, 13 excused, we do have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the journal of Tuesday, March 24, 2026, be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I would like to recognize the Adams 12 District Wrestling Team at the Capitol. These are the placers and regional champions taking a break from sprawling to get civically involved. The team represents Thornton Horizon North Glen Legacy Mountain Range Stargate and Prospect Ridge High Schools and I am honored to recognize the placers from the 5A State Tournament and Regional Champions Kata Hull, Acadia Puga, Brooklyn Gustafson, and Betty Reigns, and I'm also excited to recognize Emily Moen and Betty Reigns, who have committed to Western College University and William Penn University to continue their wrestling careers. For the past six years, the team has worked hard to reach the top and is now recognized as one of the premier girls wrestling programs in the state. The program is led by Colorado native, all-American, and educator Kaylee DeHarrera. Congratulations to the team. Keep representing Adams 12 the right way. hard work, discipline, pride in everything you do. Please welcome them. Stand up. Congratulations.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Common Sense Institute was here this morning at 8. They're serving breakfast out there. If you have the chance, swing by and say hi. They do a lot of work that you use for research and legislation. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House Education Committee will be meeting 10 minutes upon adjournment in room 107. We will be hearing House Bill 1317.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee will be meeting at 1.30 to hear Senate Bill 26, House Bill 1300, House Bill 1330, House Bill 1313, and House Bill 1061 for action only in LSBA.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want you all to recognize and welcome the Northwest Chamber of Commerce that are all here in the gallery. They represent seven chambers of commerce from Boulder to Broomfield to Louisville, Longmont, Lafayette, Superior, and the Boulder County Latino Chamber. They are here until noon. They will be down in House Committee Room 109. So please welcome them and then go say hi when you can later today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Health and Human Services Committee will meet today at 1.30 to hear the sunset review of the Colorado Podiatry Board, Senate Bill 031, Senate Bill 077, and House Bill 1249 for action only. We'll see you there.

Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the Joint Technology Committee join us tomorrow morning at 845. we're going to have a discussion on bill drafting for a proposed bill in room 352 be there at 845

thank you madam speaker colleagues the business affairs and labor committee will meet 15 minutes upon adjournment and we'll be hearing senate bill 76 and house bill 1247 in that order thank you judiciary

Judiciary Committee members, we are meeting today at 1.30 in the Old State Library, and we're going to hear House Bill 1322 and Senate Bill 18. Old State Library today, 1.30.

Thank you Madam Speaker Just a quick announcement colleagues that tomorrow morning counties and commissioners acting together CCAT is holding their legislative breakfast 730 to 9 outside the old Supreme Court chamber They represent county commissioners across Colorado. Great chance to connect with those folks who are doing hard work on behalf of all of our communities. And I hear the burritos are going to be delicious as well. So multiple reasons to stop by and say hello to your county commissioners. Tomorrow morning, 730.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. The rare but amazing Energy and Environment Committee for the House will be meeting today upon adjournment to hear House Bill 1225, come one, come all. And I think it will be about 15 minutes after adjournment, but I will make sure everybody knows.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow.

Mr. Schiebel, members, we are on third reading.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1339. House Bill 1339 by Representatives Duran and Garcia, also Senator Danielson, concerning a change in the name of the voluntary legal holiday observed on March 31st from Cesar Chavez Day to Farm Workers Day.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1339 on third reading and final passage.

thank you madam speaker this resolution or resolution it feels like a resolution because it's not in capital letters so forgive me this bill came to my committee earlier this week. And during the committee, I asked two questions. Two questions I reiterated yesterday on second reading. The first question was, did the bill sponsors consider changing the date? Because the date that was selected was the man in question's birthday. And if the desire is to distance from the man in question, do they consider also distancing from that aspect of the story? And in having conversations on the mic and off the mic, I've come to better appreciate the conversations around this bill in various communities and understand that there are many conversations yet to come. So I appreciate that. The second question that I asked was what evidence exists to substantiate the allegations? The allegations that are being used to remove an honor that was given to this man. The man is dead. The allegations are from many years ago. And so how do we know? How do we know that we are standing with the just side of this equation? What substantiates these claims? And I was pointed to in committee a variety of supporting evidence, minutes from farm worker meetings and other corroborating evidence that supports these allegations. Because this individual had passed away, he can have no day in court. He cannot defend himself any longer And so we in this part of history have to make our best judgment on what happened years ago And so I stand here in support because I believe that what was shared does substantiate the claims here. I note that there are nearly, that there is nearly every name already listed as co-sponsor on this resolution. Supporting an action to defend women we've never met, or likely never met, some may have, but most have never met against a man we'll never know. I ask that this body and the days and weeks to come, when they are asked to make a

Hi, thank you, Madam Speaker. I just again want to come up here and commend the sponsors for how fast they were able to get this done um given the recent allegations that did come out and i think this is a reminder that we should move fast to protect not only survivors and victims that um you know especially of sexual assault and violence but our women and our children and people of that nature who you know sometimes the uh we break barriers and there's just too many taboos and people are afraid to come forward and you know there comes a time when people reflect and you know with the culture that was then is not the culture we live in now and I think we should hold ourselves to that and remind ourselves that the environment we are in today after the me too movement has kind of fostered this environment where now people are more open and comfortable to come forward versus decades ago and I think this is something that well you know the same arguments can be said about anyone else that has passed and you know where where's what happened to believe all women what happened to believe victims and hear them out because at the end of the day, I don't think people would just fabricate stuff like this, especially at this point in time. And what we see nationwide across the country with, you know, polarization, we should take these allegations very seriously. And so I encourage an Ivo, and I commend the sponsors for the work on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is, today, like we said yesterday, this is a day that's full of sadness and horror and anger and it's also a day that we can be joyful and proud and celebrate we have a chance today to not only honor victims and survivors and say yes we believe you we also have a chance to return this movement to its original roots of being for and by farm workers that is why this is so important today. And I am grateful to every single one of you that said, yes, that is what we need to do today. And for all of you and those of you who may not have signed on as a co-sponsor but will still vote yes, you are helping to make history, to set precedent, and to make sure that the entire communities out there, farm workers, the Latino community, agriculture that they know how important we believe that they are and for the victims and survivors in this world whether it's in movement spaces or It's behind the car of a gig driver that we stand with victims and survivors.

And I hope to see every single name on this board light up green today.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1214. House Bill 1214 by Representatives English and Jackson, also Senator Amabile, concerning the continuation of the Colorado Licensing of Controlled Substances Act and in connection therewith implementing the recommendations contained in the 2025 Sunset Report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1214 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1242. House Bill 1242 by Representatives Pascal and Jackson, also Senator Roberts, concerning interlock restricted license requirements for impaired drivers and in connection therewith making appropriation. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1242 on third reading and final passage.

English Garcia.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1260. House Bill 1260 by Representatives Garcia and Wilford, also Senators Cutter and Bright, concerning programs for child care assistance. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1260 on third reading and final passage.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1188. House Bill 1188 by Representatives Camacho and Titone, also Senator Colker, concerning the continuation of the regulation of securities and a connection therewith, implementing the recommendations of the Department of Regulatory Agencies in the Department's 2025 Sunset Report.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1188 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1006. House Bill 1006 by Representatives Velasco and Martinez, also Senator Roberts, concerning the designation of state institutions of higher education as thriving institutions. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1006 on third reading, final passage.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1197. House Bill 1197 by Representative Morrow, also Senator Kipp. concerning the continuation of the vessel registration program.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1197 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1269. House Bill 1269 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph, also Senator Marchman, concerning transit access. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1269 on third reading final passage.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the following bills be made special orders on March 25, 2026 at 9.49 a.m. House Bill 1320, Senate Bill 118, House Bill 1195, Senate Bill 88, and House Bill 1304.

Representative English.

Mr. Sheba, please read the title of House Bill 1320. House Bill 1320 by Representatives Winn and Garcia concerning statutory requirements for ballot title language and in connection therewith, requiring the use of accessible language in allowing for the modification of statutorily required ballot title language.

Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. I'd like to move the committee report to the committee of the whole.

I'd like to move the bill and the...

I'd like to move House Bill 26-13-20 and the committee report.

Representative Garcia

Members, in Committee of State Affairs we brought an amendment that clarifies what we mean when we talk about accessible language and we ask for an aye vote Is there, Representative Luck

Representative Luck.

Yes, we do actually have an amendment to the committee report. My apologies this morning. So I move L004 and ask that it be displayed

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's unfortunate that this is to the committee report because I think it's important that the bill sponsors be able to frame their own bill, but that is the process in which we are in, and so I'm going to need to lay some foundation in order for this amendment to make sense. This is one of a few bills that...

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is one of a few bills that are coming through this year related to ballot initiatives and language that is used on those initiatives. It's important to understand that these particular requirements apply to citizen initiatives. because under citizen initiatives you have the title board who makes a decision. The other way you can get questions on the ballot is through a referred measure. Referred measures, as you all know, are measures that this body approves. And because this body approves, a legislator could conceivably have a particular issue that he or she wants to drive out into the state through a referred initiative, a referred measure, and go through this particular legislator, could go through the process of polling language seeing which words and which orders will result in greater success and then have that added to their resolution in this space And unless somebody in this building has enough votes to override that particular framing, that is the framing that ends up on the ballot. which means that the legislature has more ability to ensure its referred measures pass than citizens do with their initiatives. And that's unfair. citizens come with their ideas and their tens of thousands of signatures and they ask the title board please have mercy on us in the way that you frame this and there are citizens who come prepared and they say here is our draft language this is what we would most like to see as the question because they too could go and have those same pollsters do those same studies to figure out that same winning language and apply it but under law the title board doesn't have any impact or can impact very greatly, sorry, doesn't need to take into account really what they have submitted. They could completely ignore it and set their own title. And there is a question there of fairness. A question that is actually exacerbated by one of the elements of the introduced bill that is before us. You see, in this particular bill, there are many a section that shifts the current rules related to how a ballot title reads and is ordered. I don't know about you, but I have some constituents who, when they want to sit down and talk about their ballot with me before they vote, and they're reading through questions, and the question says, shall there be a reduction to blank tax? They're like, no, no, no, I don't need your help on this one. Yes. Circle that little dot. They don't get any further. And there, similarly, is a response when it says, shall there be an increase in X tax? And you know what they do? That's right. Good job. They circle in really quickly that no circle. They don't read any further. They don't. And under this bill, this body is giving the title board the authority and ability to rewrite that portion of the question and to reorder it, which, as we all know, will likely impact outcomes. because if the question starts not shall there be an increase in X tax but instead shall the state save puppies and then it 42 paragraphs long after that they like yeah, I think the state should indeed save those puppies. Yep, circle that in. And it stands to reason that because the Title Board receives a number of different requests every year, that some of the requests will start out, shall there be an increase in tax or reduction in tax, whereas others will start out, shall we save puppies? How do you address that particular unfairness, wanting to honor the underlying purpose of this bill, which is to promote clarity, to promote readability, to promote understanding. Using a common term in this building, how do you thread the needle between wanting to give the title board the discretion to make a sentence flow in a way that makes sense, that is common language, that leads people to a conclusion of a yes is a yes and a no is a no because we have avoided double negatives. all of those things are valid and good. But how do we protect against any sort of bias that could be used to influence unjustly and unrightly the outcome at the ballot box? And so this amendment seeks to try and thread that needle. And I'll read it because I feel like either my eyes are getting worse or the screen is getting smaller, so it's harder to see from the back of the room and while there are a few people here, I'd still just read it for those who can't see the board. It says, to add in to the amendment proposed in committee in both sections that were proposed in committee, that the proponents of a proposed initiative may submit a draft title to the title board in advance of the title setting meeting. The draft title submitted by the proponents of the proposed initiative is presumed sufficient, and the Title Board shall only modify the language used in the draft title to meet the Title Board's constitutional and statutory duties. In other words, I believe that a good way to try and thread that needle is to say, citizens, in the same way that we empower legislators to set their own title, we will also allow you the opportunity to set your own title. And if you do it properly, if you've looked into the law and you see you have to have this language and not that language and it has to do, you know, have so many commas and capitalizations, et cetera, et cetera, and you do it all, we're going to say that's good to go. If you meet those check marks, then you've got to set it. Because I think the last thing that people in this room should want is for the citizens who go through this long process, arduous process, costly process, especially those who aren't paying consultants and petition gatherers but are the ones who are out at every event they can possibly be at all hours of the day and night to get those signatures, that the power should be within their ability. they should have the ability to set themselves up for the greatest level of success in the same way that this body does It not fair that maybe if they don they can see the disparity and how different questions are treated. I believe that our nonpartisan staff seek to be nonpartisan. but the reality is all of us have a bias and whether we believe it or not that bias can come out in the most subconscious of ways and so I ask that we support this so that the bias that is included in our blue books is the bias of the people who are proposing the idea. There are a lot of hurdles to getting a ballot initiative passed, especially for those who are not linked to lots of money. And this is just one way to ensure that that beautiful process that Colorado has instituted for the citizens to engage their government in this way remains as fair and true as possible. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you, my friend.

Thank you. I believe we discussed this amendment in the committee, and we talked to the sponsors about addressing the fact that legislator-driven initiatives don't have to jump through all these hoops, but citizen initiatives do. And where is the fairness in that? And so I thought that we had talked to the bill sponsors about accepting an amendment that would make sure that citizen-initiated ballot measures don't have to jump through the same hoops that the legislator-driven ones do. In the spirit of fairness, someone said, he who frames the issue wins the argument, and that is truth. So if we allow the title board to do these things, what we should be doing and legislating in here, I keep seeing bills this year that are rules for thee but not for me, including this building here. A diaper changing bill, another bill that carved out all state buildings so we can drop fiscal notes. That is not the rules for everyone. This amendment was drafted carefully and cautiously to make sure that citizen-driven initiatives can be plainly written and neutral and not biased. If legislators get the say in the initiatives, why can't citizens also get the say in how their initiatives are drafted? And this bill is a good bill. It's got a couple of things I think if we could amend, then we could have bipartisan support. and support. I don't know why there's only Democrats on this bill. I feel like this could be good bipartisanship. I think the Blue Book and a lot of these initiatives are very, very confusing. They're run-on sentences. They're long. One of the sponsors came and read through how eliminating double negatives and things like that can make it clearer, avoid the run-on sentences, and help people truly get involved in the ballot process and be able to vote. And she made some great, she brought up Initiative 95, very difficult to understand. Then she rewrote it through a reading program, and it came out at a high school level versus like a doctorate level. And so I agree with that. I agree that the blue book should help. Honestly, I love when people call me, but I get tired of them calling me about ballot initiatives. It is over and over, and half the time I can't even understand them. so we need to make this clear for the people of colorado but if you're going to do it for the citizen-led initiatives by golly you need to do it for the legislator initiatives as well because if you think those are clear i've talked to some of you you're not that clear i'm just gonna i'm southern i'm not that clear lawyers you're not that clear so why don't we make it fair and just and right and transparent and accountable for both sets of ballot measures if we're going to do it let's knock it out of the park let's do it for the legislator ones and let's do it for the citizen-led ones in the spirit of bipartisanship which i'm i'm struggling on boy i'm struggling halfway through session to see the bipartisanship in here struggle bus this is a good amendment it's a fair amendment it's a clear amendment the rep from Penrose just read it to you guys all of you that are listening thank you rep from Jeffco appreciate you listening you always are it's a fair amendment let's make it clear for the people of Colorado cut down the phone calls to me during the summer it would be awesome and let's vote yes for this amendment in the spirit of what the sponsor said in committee of making citizen initiatives be just as fair as the legislator-driven ones. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And I want to say I enjoy serving with you.

This amendment, I think, is pretty good. So I did listen to this in committee. I didn't really disagree with anything that the sponsors said or any of the testimony coming forward. I will talk about a couple little concerns I have about the bill when we get to the bill. But I do find these titles, in fact, my wife and I have discussed it for many years now. it seems like there is a person that their only goal is to make these confusing, that the titles are truly confusing. There's no doubt about that and sometimes deceptive. But I do think that there needs to be some equality here when it comes to all titles, all titles of bills, how this works from the state or from the constituents. And so I do think this is a good amendment. I definitely can get behind this bill with just a few little changes and vote yes, and I think it really would become a very bipartisan bill if we can just tweak a little bit of this. I don't like the idea, and I don't think this was the intent of the sponsors, but I don't like the idea of why do we force things on the people, but we don hold the state or this body accountable and so I do think this is a good amendment I do think that we should vote yes on this amendment Representative DeGraff

It's an honor to serve with you.

Okay.

Representative DeGraff, are we to the amendment?

Is there any further? Representative Bradley.

Representative Bradley.

Let's stick to the amendment.

Representative DeGraff.

Rob Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, before I begin, I just want to request that we please respect and provide deference to the chair when she is trying to keep us in order. I want to thank the sponsor of this amendment for bringing this forward based on the discussion. We did have this discussion in committee. There was absolutely no commitment to bringing this forward. There was a commitment to continue to think through this. However, in this case, by limiting and reducing the authority that the title board currently has to set the title under which the Supreme Court has upheld over and over and over and over again, we see that as the you know we've seen that in many cases lending from say versus Baker lending from automobile and shit like anyway we have a lot of case law that basically says that the Supreme Court gives deference to the title board we also have statutorily that says the title board is supposed to be fair they supposed to express the true intent and they also supposed to make sure that it not misleading or that the title is not insufficient. Because of this and because of the nature and the reason why this whole bill is brought forward is because the insane amount, I don't know how many of you have actually read, have actually read 141.06. But this is every single obligation that the Title Board has to consider when they're setting a title. It is so much to consider in a one-sentence question, which is why this bill from the very onset is necessary. If we were to eliminate the expertise of the Title Board, along with the Supreme Court's continued decisions to uphold this authority for the title board, then we will move away from actually having titles that express the true intent, that are fair, and that are not misleading. Because of this, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Here. 140, 106. Let's see. One, two, three pages. Two and a touch, actually, if you combine of statutory language. Then you have another one, two, three, four, five, six. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 pages of additional notes and considerations, references to cases, explanations, references to laws that have made changes in this space. Yeah, that's quite a bit. Quite a bit of things that have to be taken into account. in setting the title. But the bill sponsor will note that at the end of this amendment, it contemplates these roughly 18 pages worth of considerations in saying that the title board shall only modify the language used in the draft title to meet the title board's constitutional and statutory duties, which means nothing in this amendment negates the 18 pages that were just referenced or any of the court cases that were listed. Because if the proponents of an initiative put forward a title that violates any one of these provisions, the title board has now not only the permission but the responsibility to modify that language to bring it into compliance. Nothing about this amendment suggests that the proponents can willy decide what to include and what not to include in contravention of otherwise established statute laws or case precedent It simply says that if the proponents want to go through the effort, in the same way legislators do in drafting their bill title, their referendum title language, and satisfy every single one of these elements, and they propose that to the title board, and all of the boxes are checked. Nothing is violating any of the standards that the title board has to revolve around. The title board needs to take that language, and you'd think that the title board would be grateful for that, because the individuals who serve on the title board don't just serve on the title board. They have other tasks and duties connected to the other jobs that they do. And so you would think that relieving them of some of their responsibilities, taking the burden off them of trying to figure this complicated language out, would be a welcome reprieve. No one is suggesting that we violate the Constitution and its idea of setting the title. Ultimately, the title board will still set the title. They'll take that draft language and say, yep, meets all the things, good to go, this is the language we're using, set. And if we in this building have the right to nuance our words, to properly structure our questions to ensure the greatest degree of success, then in fairness, we should afford those initiators the same respect. Again, there is nothing that's violating. In fact, it points back to this section and to these requirements. they must modify the language if the draft does not meet the title board's constitutional and statutory duties. I continue to ask for an aye vote, and I appreciate the conversation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I again rise and ask for a no vote on this. This, I mean, I look at this and I automatically think just given the constitutional obligation that exists within the title board, the continued, you know, Supreme Court rulings that uphold the duties of the title board, the title board's responsibility is to set the title question. It's not simply just to modify. Proponents already come with a draft question. They already sit down and engage in conversations in a public space, back and forth. They can do this once, twice, three times. They go through the title board setting with the title board. They are sitting there in the room discussing and engaging and choosing literally word for word what should be in the title question. taking away the obligation of experts who are trained who know how to review a title question against all of regulations around it would set us up for even more unconstitutional unconstitutional questions that make the ballot I asked for a no vote

And this is not the time to talk about or challenge definitions that have already been challenged. And so I would ask that we would stick to the wording on the amendment. And for those of us that are coming to speak, we accept and respect respectable dialogue. And this is where that happens. But let's just stick to the amendment, which is title in a logical and readable order. And keep it there.

Brett Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is not unconstitutional. Give me a break. We're not going to bring unconstitutional amendments. We're asking for clarity for citizen-led initiatives. And when you say that Title Board is full of experts that can't even define a parent or a woman, I disagree completely. Thank you.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, and thank you for listening. So our problem is that there is two types of models or regulations. legislator driven are not going to go through this and citizen led are now being legislated even more. So we're trying to look for clarity and what I had set up here and I got in a little bit of trouble, I don even know why is that I ran a bill that the title board deemed not under single subject but my bill went through committee so it was single subject because in this body we have to have our bills deemed single subject So I already have an example of what these experts have done, and then it delayed a citizen-led initiative by eight weeks through attorneys that they were paying for that these citizens could not afford, and I had to skip out in here and go up there and say to the title board, why did the General Assembly rule my bill single subject, but you are making these citizen-led initiatives not go through it because you're ruling it against single subjects. So we're just trying to clarify so that legislator-driven initiatives have to jump through the same hoops that we're going to now make the citizen-led initiatives.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, the representative from Denver, for asking that clarifying question. I think it's important. So as the initiative sponsor, or not the initiative, the amendment sponsor, I will say it's not my intention that there not be a vetting process. I think, sorry, lots of conversations. It's good. It's good that there's discourse in this building. It's not that there is a desire to circumvent any vetting at all, right? My intention in this is to say when these folks come together, when you have the title board members and you have the initiators and they come together and the initiators have gone through the process, right? Because the first line says the proponents of a proposed initiative may submit a draft title. in advance of the title-setting meeting, in advance. So the idea in my mind is that if the initiators, and I would look to, but it just feels odd, if the initiators go through the process of providing draft language, they don't have to, but if they do, and they say this is so important to us that we want to be able to frame our own issue, and they come up with language and that language is submitted in advance to their meeting and the title board looks at that draft and set and looks at 140 106 and says needs to have 10 commas one two three 10 commas check needs to have capital letters check needs to include the phrase underwater basket weaving check whatever those standards are and about the end of the process says yep check check check check all is there that they have to presume that then sufficient that they should be able to take that draft and say it meets all of our requirements and so we not going to change it Because I can change the Constitution that says the title board shall set So I can't say in consultation with or through agreement with. Like I can't require that the initiators and the title board sit together and reach a point of agreement, right, because of the different. but I can say, hey, title board, when you go to set this title, and if the title or the initiators provide you with language and it satisfies all of your requirements, take their language. Presume that to be, and maybe it's not the right word to say presumed sufficient, right? Maybe there's a better way to nuance that to say, you know, that the proposed initiative is sufficient unless the title board finds or something, but the idea behind what is trying to be accomplished here is that if those members of the public who go through all of this heartache come to the title board and say this is what we think is the language that will give us the best chance of success at the at the at the ballot box and it satisfies all of the different legal requirements then take that don't change it right and I think what rep from Douglas County is pointing to is a feeling within certain circles in Colorado that the title board on occasion is opposed to certain things such that they challenge different aspects and then it leaves people feeling like they're not actually getting the fairest of chances. And so if we can minimize that, even if it doesn't exist, right? But her example is questioning. Why is a bill that was single subject here determined not single subject in another forum? And so there is some of that frustration and why is it that legislators get to decide what their ballot title language looks like, and we can't. And so to have some degree of parity that if they go through all of that work and they satisfy all of those requirements, which it has been laid out clearly here, is nearly impossible that we then honor that work and honor their request and give them the best shot they can at election time.

Representative DeGraff. To the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to address that regarding the amendment and the clarity of the language, for the citizens who are wondering about the blue book If it in the blue book it a tax increase You don even have to worry about the clarity of language If it in the blue book it a tax increase If it a tax decrease which never happens out of this room it would not need to be in the blue book right You'll never see a tax decrease out of this room, but if it was, it wouldn't be in the blue book. We could just do it. So tax increase, blue book, it's a tax increase.

Thank you. To the report. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee, for engaging in that conversation. I very much appreciate it. I move Amendment L-003 in hopes of having a bit more success on this front.

Representative Love. Thank you, Madam Chair. You'd think that this was my first day in the building. I withdraw that amendment and wait in anticipation for bringing it back once the committee report is adopted All right The question before us is the adoption of the committee report Are those as representative of the graph

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, in fact, to the committee report. It's been shared with the sponsors, and I ask L005 be moved. I move L005 to House Bill 1320 and ask that it be displayed. I am moving it to the committee report for House Bill 1320.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this does, and it goes to what my colleague brought up about blue book language. And, of course, anybody that puts something in the blue book, and, again, for everybody listening at home, If it's in the blue book, it's a tax increase. It is a tax increase. If not now, it's a tax increase later. Now, what happens in these blue books is the people that are proposing them, the people that have brought it, they want to obscure it so you don't realize it's a tax increase. But by nature, being in the blue book, it's a tax increase. So what this does in the committee report and in the bill, this is a hybrid, you'll notice, and this was done, I think it was in 1126, and it's the drafter's discretion because it makes sense. There's parts of both. We're moving the amendment. It modifies the committee report and it modifies the bill simultaneously. So it's just an efficiency matter. But what this does is it keeps mandatory tax impact warning at the front of the title. Because it sure seems that a big reason for having this bill come forward is that we're going to be trying to hide language. So what this does is it takes everything where it just reverts it to current law and takes out anything that would be basically striking out which may appear anywhere in the battle title, which may be placed anywhere. So why would the bill that is supposed to be around these ballot titles, looking for clarity, why would the language specifically, why would it go from our tried and true, where we put that tax language up at the front, without raising taxes? It's a tax increase. Or by with increasing taxes. And then putting it later in the sentence or anywhere else in the description and hiding that. I mean, I know why there's the desire to obfuscate the purpose of it. So what it does is it strikes the phrase which may appear anywhere in the ballot title strike the phrase which may be placed anywhere in the subsection Substitute language requiring the mandated taxing statement to appear at the beginning of the ballot title or immediately after the Tabor language when in Article X or Article 10, Section 23C applies. So the rationale is that the bill's core negative move is giving the title board discretion to relocate tax impact warnings, which is generally a primary reason for being a ballot initiative. So the bill's core negative move is giving the Title Board discretion to relocate tax impact warnings, restoring the prominent placement, preserves voter notice, and limits discretionary softening of fiscal consequences. It's easy for me to say. Challenging druthers. Challenging for others. Easy for me to say challenging for others. Fiscal consequences. This would improve, this would reduce state discretion and preserve clearer disclosure. So again, yeah, maybe we need to update the title board, but maybe the purpose of the bill in the modification of the language, especially when you take it and you take this and you say, well, the tax implications of this, which are only required to be revealed to the citizens of Colorado by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which is under continual assault in this room. So the underlying... So one of the things that we do with amendments, is that we say let's put an amendment forward and then we'll find out what the real purpose of the bill is. So this language that says the tax implications can appear anywhere, anywhere in the ballot title, at the very end, somewhere in the middle where we deem it's not going to be as clear. So let's just say that type of wording was added inadvertently to give flexibility. But if we reject it, what we can know is that was the intent of the bill. I don't know the motive, but if we're going to keep things like which may appear anywhere in the ballot, which may be placed anywhere, what we're trying to do is we're trying to bury the consequences of the initiative. And I think that is a disservice to the citizens of Colorado.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again to the representative from Denver for having this conversation. I also am processing this amendment in real time, but I think if I understand correctly, this has to be to the committee report. This particular set of amendments have to be to the committee report because the committee report added in additional sections, and those sections, if we delete this one, will not be numbered or lettered correctly. That's what my reading is on what's going on here. And so it's my understanding that the amendment sponsor is trying to strike the language that changes the TABOR standard for how we present ballot initiatives that deal with either revenue or expenditure changes. But he obviously can speak for himself. Representative Garcia.

Representative Lutt. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that tidbit of information. I am grateful for that. You know, always nice to have some of those details. just I will say while it may not come strictly from Tabor, there is the same. It is the money. It's all about the money, folks, all about the money. So it's that section.

Representative DeGraff. So it's always been at the beginning, but it's not required to be at the beginning. So we're going to remove it and say that it can be anywhere. But if we strike that, if it goes, if we strike these large cap letters, which is, again, the intent of the bill, and this is where our amazing drafters go through to find these, say, this is what I want. What I need to do is I need to strike the phrase, which may appear anywhere in the ballot title and which may be placed anywhere. And then somehow, these magical people called drafters, they find all of this and how this, I would be missing both eyes at this point if that was my requirement to track all these down. But that's what the intent is. And basically replace it with which must appear at the beginning of the ballot title. So what the drafter did... was just remove all of those areas where it says may appear anywhere in the ballot title and may be placed anywhere. And what that does is it returns it to initial statute. So when the sponsor says, well, the intent of the initial statute was that it could be anywhere, and we're just clarifying the initial statute, I would argue no, because the initial statute clearly puts that tax wording at the beginning of the initiative, of the title, telling you up front what this is. So this language in here, this all caps language, such as which may appear anywhere in the ballot title, that is new. The all caps is new. That's on page 3, line 16, for those of you following at home. That is new. That is changing the original intent. If you don't want to change the original intent, don't add something that's in all caps. So easy right now. You want to go with the initial intent, and we only want to make some small changes? This, this is a large change. This is a substantial change. This is a deliberate change. And this is a deceptive change. I don't know why. Well, when you take...

Well, the reason for moving that language about the tax implications to anywhere in the ballot title or anywhere is not for the purpose of clarity, is not for the purpose of understanding. and is certainly not for the purpose of informing the people who look at that ballot title and they make largely a determination. So I would say the reason for removing it from that is so that the people who start reading it and go, wow, this legalese, this obtuse legalese, I'm not going to be able to make it through this. And then they stop reading. And so what the title people would like you to say, what they would just like it to lead off with is for the children, for example. For the environment, for the purpose of all this stuff. And then they want to take that tax part and they want to put it and they want to bury it someplace in the title. So if that's not the case, we accept this amendment. we go back to the original wording, we go back to the original intent, because we're talking about a ballot initiative, that according to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a substantial change in tax code, or it is a tax increase. And so if the purpose of it being in the bill, that it has a tax increase in it or a substantial change to the tax code if that is the purpose then the purpose needs to be brought out up front not hidden behind for the children or for some emotional bait that will get somebody to bite down on the hook of raising their taxes on themselves. The purpose, and I'm not, well, motive? I don't know. What's the motive? What's the motive? The motive would be to hide that. The motive is to hide that. I'm not questioning the motive.

Thank you. Okay. Well, I guess this gets to language and the use of language because impugning motive would be to say that it's wrong or something. Or to stay with mine, to be clear. No, I just said to say.

I'm getting a sidebar here, so I'm honoring my colleague. There is a matter of statement of fact. I am speaking in terms of statement of fact. If you bury okay let's just go back and let's make sure we take any implication of motive out of this. If through no intent of the sponsors you take that language that says it's related to the tax code and you remove it or you move it into someplace else that it can be hidden, through no intention of the sponsor, that title becomes deceptive. Through no intention of the sponsor. It's just the happenstance of, it's just a result of that action. It makes it more difficult for the citizen to read that blue book and understand what they're looking at. So what I'm saying is, if you don't want to inadvertently create deceptive titles, then what we do is we remove these changes, which were clearly unintended, and we revert back to the original intent that says if it's going to be in the ballot title, if you're going to do a ballot initiative, you don't inadvertently create a deceptive title by allowing that wording to be moved someplace else inside the title. So I'm not questioning the motive of the sponsors. I'm just trying to help them make sure they stay inside the bounds of what they're trying to achieve. And I know they're trying to be not deceptive, but the result of the language in the bill would make for deceptive titles. And that's just a statement of fact. So in order to help the sponsors maintain their intention of being non I suggest a yes on this amendment So we stay away from deceptive titles inadvertently and make sure that our titles are not deceptive by going back to the intent of the law. Because otherwise we're really kind of actually changing. You're doing multiple subjects here. This wording in itself would be worth a whole discussion, which I guess is what we're doing. But in order for there not to be inadvertently deceptive titles contradictory to the sponsor's intent, I recommend an aye vote.

Representative Bradley.

The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-005. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L-005 is lost.

Okay.

Representative DeGraph, please do not suggest intent of a bill because an amendment was not accepted. Can we please just keep it now? We're still on the committee report. Thank you.

L-006 is displayed.

Representative Wayne. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment because, for one thing, in Section 2 of 1320, we have a clause in lines 21 to 27 that indicates that the understanding of the effect is a yes or no or a no and against vote. And this idea that we're basically addressing the confusion of misleading titles already. Our bill is already addressing that and we are not going to omit or have any persuasive or motive advocacy language already. So I feel like this amendment just doesn't really fit in with the setting already because we're already doing that. We're already advocating and making clear, accessible language. The goal of the bill title is yes or no. It is not to debate about discussing about fiscal regulatory policy because the intention already is to have that in the ballots. So, again, appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Representative DeGrasse, let's just stay to the intent of the amendment, not suggesting how someone's vote, what the outcome would be.

The committee will go into a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The question before us is the adoption of... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The committee will go into a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order.

The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-006. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment L-006, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. Thank you. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place. Raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you

The question before is whether the committee will rise, report, progress, and beg leave to sit again later today. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee will rise, report, progress, and beg leave to sit again. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to House Rule 14, I move that debate on House Bill 1320 be limited to one hour during special orders on March 25, 2026.

Representative Morrow, how do you vote?

Camacho and Rutnell. Zocay. All excused. Please close the machine. With 36 aye 23 no and 6 excused The motion is adopted Representative English Oh, Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

thank you Madam Chair it's great fun to serve with you okay so since we haven't voted on this I guess we have but again on the committee report I think we're actually done with this one aren't we or are we still talking to this one

Representative Garcia. Madam Chair, we ask for an aye vote on the committee report.

Representative DeGraff. Okay. The First Amendment has left the building. If that's the case, please sit down. No, I'm kidding. To the bill. To the bill. Well, we're talking, Madam Chair, about the right to petition your government. And we've been petitioning the government. We're talking actually about the First Amendment and petitioning the government. And we're talking about removing the potential and not creating the environment for persuasive, emotive, advocacy-oriented or deceptive speech. Those have all been voted down. So now we have a bill before us that, regardless of intent, has intentionally created the environment for persuasive, emotive, advocacy-oriented speech. Non-neutral, subjective language to be put before the citizens of Colorado for the purpose of tax-tracting them more. evermore. And this is important because there will at some point be a vote on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights because it is an affront to the majority party that the taxpayers have rights. So in this effort to recover this bill, which now we know is written for the inclusion of persuasive emotion advocacy oriented language I don't know why because it seems somebody who is a voice of the people would want to make sure that the people they represent would understand the consequences of their actions and not have that buried in persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language. So we'll try one more time. And move, I move L-007 to House Bill 1320 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's kind of winding out of steam, but then now we have the gauntlet thrown of an hour, so I guess I've got to figure out how to fill an hour. so let's look at the bill the unamended bill the amended because the amended bill would have included material to remove persuasive emotive or advocacy oriented language and now we've made that clear that that so far and I'm going to give the sponsors another opportunity to rectify that and make it clear that that is not their intent because so far it's the purpose the purpose is deceptive language so let's look at l007 if it's properly displayed and it appears to be so what i would like to do is i would like to amend the bill page three line five, and there's a word at the end of audience. Are written using accessible language. Great, we love that, that it's accessible language. Which is plain language, which is kind of redundant and repetitious, but that's okay. That is understood Now it kind of repetitious redundant and duplicative By the widest possible audience By the widest possible audience. But that's all. What does that mean understood? Is that comprehended? And to what level is that comprehended? Do they have a full grasp of what this bill, this title, this ballot title is about? Well, I would say no at this point because the sponsors have made it their purpose to allow persuasive, emotive, and advocacy-oriented language.

It was expressly voted on. So let's look at page 3, line 5. And you're right, I should not have specified the sponsors alone when the body voted on it. This means in substitute audience, so we're going to have this language that's accessible, understood, and plain. and all we're going to do is add without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure. That's all. Without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure. Now the sponsors might say, well, that's implied in there. Well, if it's implied, and it should be, it's not, but it should be. If it's not, then this amendment is easy. Why would you want to leave out something as simple as saying the audience that it should be understood by the widest possible audience without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure? And we can also go to page 6 because it shows up there again on page 6. and again this is the language to add a neutrality guardrail. If we're going to allow persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language, we need a guardrail. And that is on page 6, line 3, strike audience. Our written using accessible language, that is understood by the widest possible audience And adding again, without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure. Now, I would say here, when you say understood, that you're not merely speaking in terms of do you understand the language, but do you understand, do you comprehend the ramifications of that language? Do you understand, do you comprehend the outcome? Do you comprehend the consequences And this is only written in terms of the language but what I'm suggesting is we add, without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure. And the reason is we just want to clarify that word understood because somebody, let's say somebody down in the future that is inclined to include persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language that is not precluded by this bill, might also want to use that persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language to obscure the neutrality, to obscure the material consequences of the measure. So that's all we're doing is we're trying to clarify not just the comprehending of the language, but we're understanding, comprehending what that language means, what that bill actually says, what that title actually says, what that description actually says. And you're not going to do that without the comprehension, and this bill only addresses the understanding of the language, not the comprehensive of the consequences. And in fact, the bill goes out of its way to avoid the description and the understanding of the consequences. Now, the body goes out of its way to make sure that the consequences are not there. So this is just another opportunity to include that the audience will understand the widest possible audience. We want the widest possible audience to understand the consequences of their decision. And so I would be at a loss to understand why the sponsors would not want the widest possible audience to understand the consequences of their actions, of their vote. So this is just an opportunity for the sponsors to clarify that they want the widest possible audience to understand not just the language, but the consequences. That's it. If they feel that this is already implied, fantastic. Add the language. It's not implied. This bill is speaking about the language. And this bill already allows for persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language. So it is creating the environment whereby the widest possible audience will not know. I mean, that's already not neutrality. But they will not know the material consequences of this measure. So this bill currently is creating the environment, creating the opportunity whereby the citizens of Colorado will not know the material consequences of the measure. And so if somebody is aligned with securing those certain self creator endowed rights I would find it really difficult to believe that they would not want the citizens to be fully aware of the material consequences of their vote Because why else would we put it for a vote? Why would we put it for a vote? It's because there are material consequences. So I think the sponsors are going to actually accept this one because I think the sponsors really do intend to make sure that the vote of the widest possible audience, without sacrificing neutrality, are aware of the material consequences of the measure. So I look forward to the sponsors accepting this amendment and ensuring that the citizens of Colorado understand the material consequences of their vote, despite the use of persuasive motive or advocacy-oriented language that is permitted by this bill. So I appreciate in advance. I appreciate in the advance the sponsor's acceptance of this amendment, which will also be, not now, I'm not calling for it now, but will also be marked by division and account.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you.

We ask for a no vote. Thank you.

I mean, I would like the debate to be two-sided. I mean, that would be awesome. Because what I would like to understand is why the sponsor is opposed, why the sponsor is opposed to statutorily assuring that the citizens understand the material consequences of a measure. Why is the sponsor, sponsors, why are the sponsors opposed to assuring that the material consequences of the measure are known? I was hoping that the sponsors would tell me that. Because it is my job here to secure these certain self-evident creator endowed rights. And we do that through the process of self-governance, and we do that by putting these votes before the citizens. Now, I do realize that in this chamber, we're largely unaware or uncaring. That would be motive. We're largely unaware of the material consequences of a measure. And that's our own doing. But if we are going to hide the material consequences of a measure behind persuasive emotive or advocacy-oriented language, as permitted by this bill, If we're going to allow activists to shape the title to hide the material consequences of a measure, I would just like to hear the sponsor articulate why it's important. I would just like to have the sponsors articulate why it is important that the material consequences of the measure are hidden from the citizens of Colorado behind persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language. That's all I want. I'm assuming that there's a good reason. I mean, besides tax-tracting them farther without limit. But I would just like to have the sponsors explain why they want to conceal the material consequences of a measure behind persuasive, emotive, or advocacy-oriented language. That's all I'm asking. So if the sponsor, one or both, or you could even come up here with me. That's an always tried and true thing that we haven't done for a while. I mean, those were the days. The, if, true, true. if you'd like to come up I'd be happy to stand here well and we could have this discussion and you could explain why you could explain to me why one or both of you I mean we I could stand off to the side and you could both explain to me why it is important to be able for these title these bill titles to obscure the material consequences between behind emotive or advocacy oriented language why is this important why is this important to you to reject this amendment to make an environment where that can happen on the bill title. Can you just explain to me why that is important to you? Why is the citizens understanding the material consequences? Stay here. All right. Can you just lower it for me for a second? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is really awesome to serve with you.

So I cannot answer the question that the representative from El Paso County is actually asking because it is not actually a fair question. What I think the discussion and the dialogue should lead us to is going back to the actual intent of the bill that we're bringing forward, which going back to this amendment, while sure, the amendment reads fine, the reality is that if we were to go through and look at the entirety of the regulations and the requirements and the expectations that a title board must adhere to when setting a title, it is already, especially with the addition of our bill, sans this amendment. Sands. Yeah, sands. Sands. Sands this amendment. Soper. We are already asking that the language be crafted in a way that is widely understood by the largest type of audience you can think of. We have outlined in the last committee report that we just debated for hours and hours and hours the addition of the language that clarified what that should mean as guidance for the title board specifically Saying no to this amendment does not mean that we are wanting to obscure anything. saying no to this amendment is because how can we as a body agree to one part which says we want to clarify language for the citizens to understand while muddling our statutes with even more language to make it more confusing. I personally think that that would actually be counter to what our efforts are. That is why I'm asking for a no vote on this amendment. I want to clarify that if you vote yes on this amendment, you're voting yes for the reasons that you find important. If you vote no on this amendment, it's because you understand what currently lies in our statutes, what the current constitutional requirements are of the Title Board, and what our bill is attempting to do and that this amendment is not necessary.

Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Okay. The question before us is the passage of Amendment L7. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor, an amendment of L7, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. As long as it is. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. You may be seated. Amendment L7 is lost. To the bill.

Representative DeGraph. Okay, so we're on board on the same page here. the amendments were all good faith amendments to help in that regard, in clarifying that to make sure that not just the language is understood, but the ramifications are understood, so that we're not inadvertently creating an environment, because as the examples were given, there is a level of questioning about the non-biased nature when an organization of trained professionals can't apply simple definitions. So the environment for distrust was created. And what we're trying to do with the amendments is keep the bill, may put guardrails around the bill for what we had assumed was the intent and to say this is we agree we think that this is your intent and we think that these amendments would clarify your intent and we think that these amendments would prevent the bill from at some point going outside of your intent So every single amendment that was brought was not brought for the sake of attacking. It was brought for the sake of clarifying what we had intended your position, what we had intended, not we had intended it, what our understanding or our hoped understanding of the bill would be or was. And if those were the intents of the bill, then those amendments should have been easy to accept. the question arises when we bring good faith amendments forward that we think put guardrails around the nature of the bill that we think that is going to keep it inside of your intent and those amendments make sure and they say we think we're just trying to clarify the intent to make sure that our understanding is the same as your understanding If you want to build trust in this process, then you can look at those amendments and you can say, well, those are easy to accept. The distrust in this process comes when these amendments are just these simple amendments that just put guardrails around neutrality, put guardrails around making sure, ensuring that the citizens have not just an understanding of the language, but they have a comprehension of the consequences. So when you reject those type of amendments that are made, again, in good faith, and we just want to clarify that we're all talking about the same thing, when those simple things are rejected, it builds an environment of distrust.

No, I was just explaining to the sponsor why we presented those amendments, and then I was about to step down. So I'm going to be done here. I think my colleague has an amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support for HB 26-1320 accessible language, statutory ballot title requirements. And this being one of my first bills here at the General Assembly for the 75th session, I just want to emphasize that we can all agree that ballot accessibility and ballot language is difficult. You need approximately a 22nd grade level to understand a Colorado ballot. And that is just unrealistic. Not everyone can have a Ph.D. or a law degree to understand their ballots. And so the goal of this bill is to basically make for the common average voter to read their ballot. So I just want to emphasize that the language that this bill approves and supports is simple, concise, and accessible language. So we basically believe that this expands accessibility in ballot language, allowing voters to fully understand their ballot titles, and to ensure that voters know the impacts of basically what they voting on Yes or no These ballots are already run on sentences They're extremely difficult to read, and this encourages transparency in how the state plans and uses ballot titles. So, again, I stand in strong support of this bill, and I appreciate the time. And, of course, I want to say thank you to the opposition on the other side for coming up and introducing our amendments and having a verbose conversation and dialogue. So thank you so much again. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors. I do appreciate the conversation. I thought it was interesting to look back in time at some other ballot title language. just for the committee's understanding and information. So I'm just pulling some of these. You know, the first one, first blue book type thing I could find was from 1954. Actually, I didn't find it. One of our wonderful staff in Legislative Council found it for me. This is well before the blue book. It was just an analysis. In fact, it was titled, Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly Presents an Analysis of 1954 Ballot Proposals. 1954, that's crazy. Long time ago. It's interesting because in that year, there were eight questions posed to the people of Colorado, and all of the questions fit on a single 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper at regular, seemingly 12-point font. The first questions was, actually the first five questions were under the heading Constitutional Amendments Submitted by the General Assembly. And the first question was simply, amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado vesting in the State of Colorado the authority to regulate public utilities. Looks like conversations haven't changed much in this state. The second one was amendment to Article 12 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado relating to civil service. That's a whole question. we'll look at number four well no let's just read them the third amendment to sections one and nineteen and the repeal of section 21 of article four of the constitution of the state of colorado relating to the executive department number four amendment to section or amendment of section six of article 24 of the constitution of the state of colorado relating to age old old age pensions amendment to article 5 of the constitution of the state of colorado relating to the general assembly and the appointment of the members thereof the next ballot initiative or ballot question was under the heading proposed law referred by the general assembly and it simply read the construction improvement and reconstruction of public highways and bridges and the issuance of state highway fund revenue anticipation warrants, the expenditure of such funds, and for the retirement of such warrants. The seventh question was under the title or under the heading Constitutional Amendment submitted by the General Assembly It was amendment to Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado relating to taxation And then the topic, the title heading for number 8 was Constitutional Amendment submitted by initiated petition. and this question was an act to amend article 14 section 8 of the state constitution to provide for a four-year term of office beginning in 1955 for the following county officials to it clerk sheriff coroner treasurer superintendent of schools surveyor assessor and county attorney who may be elected or appointed as shall be provided by law and providing for their salary or compensation. It's curious that even in 1945, the citizen-initiated petition ballot question was more convoluted and lengthy than the other ones submitted by the General Assembly, even back then. I just thought that was a bit of fun insight into the past, definitely more plain language, Less clarity. Now, the book that was published has analysis. It has the provisions that are being suggested and pro and con arguments listed out. But none of that is included in the actual ballot question. It's markedly different than some of these ones from 2012, 2013, 2014, which are basically as long on the page as half or more of the prior questions from 1945. Questions like, shall state taxes be increased by $70 million annually in the first full fiscal year and by such amounts as are raised annually thereafter by imposing an excise tax of 15% when unprocessed retail marijuana is first sold or transferred by a retail marijuana cultivation facility with the first $40 million of tax revenues being used for public school capital construction as required by the state constitution and by imposing an additional sales tax of 10% on the sale of retail marijuana and retail marijuana products, with the tax revenues being used to fund the enforcement of regulations on the retail marijuana industry and other costs related to the implementation of the use and regulation of retail marijuana as approved by the voters, with the rate of either or both taxes being allowed to be decreased or increased without further voter approval so long as the rate of either tax does not exceed 15%, and with the resulting tax revenue being allowed to be collected and spent, notwithstanding any limitations provided by law. We've come a long way from 1954. And so I do want to reiterate what I have sprinkled in throughout this debate, the statement that, as was mentioned by the bill sponsor, we are in agreement that clarity needs to occur. We do continue to have concerns about the fairness, as has been iterated at length this morning and afternoon. So I appreciate the work that has been done. I know that it is not just work that the two of you have taken on, but work from folks outside this building who are passionate about making sure that the citizenry knows what they're being asked to consider and that they are fully informed so that they can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. I think that is very important. I will also note that times they have changed and there may be future conversations, just to put this idea out there, where perhaps in addition to the printing of the blue book, we move to video format. as well, as many folks struggle with reading more and more. And so if they can access that in a form that is more akin to TikTok, maybe perhaps there would be greater clarity. In any case, I appreciate the conversation. Is there any further discussion? Representative Bradley. How much more time do we have? 13 minutes, 10 seconds. Thank you, Assistant Majority Leader. I move Amendment L-003 to House Bill 1320 and ask for it to be displayed. Okay, L-3 is displayed. Thank you. And I appreciate the bill's sponsors. There's not a lot of people that will dialogue and sit up here with us and listen to what we're saying, and I appreciate we're all going to be in the boat together and get this figured out. I'm going to hold you to it. You know, and this could be argued that this is already in the statute, but I sit on health and human services and a lot of times there's unclear wording like reasonable judgment, sound judgment, discretion, things like that. And we spend a lot of time on those committees and state affairs, making sure that there's amendments to clarify or ensure that those words are clear. And so this is just an amendment to talk about it being fair and impartial. And I wanted to look up the definitions of what that means. So fair, treating all parties justly and equitably, free from favoritism, bias, or undue advantage. A fair process ensures that rules are applied consistently, that similarly situated people are treated the same, and that outcomes are not predetermined or influenced by outside pressure. And I can assure you, I've talked to a lot of you, there's a lot of outside pressure going on in this building. And I would say on ballot initiatives on both of our sides, there's a lot of million-dollar companies that come in to run these versus the citizen-led initiatives that don't have that money. It also means each party has a meaningful opportunity to present their case, respond to opposing arguments, and receive a decision based on objective criteria rather than subjective preference. That's why I think fair was a good term to use. Now, impartial, the second part of the amendment, acting without bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest. Boy, we need some lack of conflict of interest in here. An impartial decision maker approaches every case with neutrality, evaluates facts strictly on the evidence presented, and does not favor any individual group or political outcome. I would say we definitely need that when it comes to the title board and how they rule on different initiatives. Free from pressure by lobbyists, public opinion, or political leadership, a commitment to applying the law as written rather than as one might wish it to be. What it also does is these words carry legal, procedural, and political weight, and their inclusion can shape how the law is interpreted and enforced. One, it establishes a clear and enforceable legal standard. By explicitly requiring actions to be fair and impartial, the amendment creates a defined benchmark that agencies, boards, or officials must meet. Without this language decision authority can become overly discretionary or vague With it there is a measurable standard that can be referenced in audits oversight hearings or title boards It reinforces due process protections Fairness is deeply connected to due process principles, something that I stand very strongly on, including it signals that any individual or entity affected by this bill must receive proper notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a consistent application of the rules. like we're saying, is the difference between citizen-led initiatives and legislator-driven initiatives. It acts as a safeguard against political or ideological bias. And that, I believe the bill sponsors is truly their intent. And talking to them offline is we don't want lobbyists and these big million-dollar companies to have this bias towards these citizen-driven initiatives. Limits unchecked discretion and overly broad authority. We have talked about that with the different definitions that I've come up here and talked about. Creates accountability and a basis for review or appeal. We believe in the fairness aspect of that, and that's why we've been fighting, because we believe in the citizen-led initiatives, and we believe that it should be the same standard for both. Promotes consistency across cases and situations. again while we're using the fairness term it requires that similar cases be treated similarly builds and preserves public trust in government institutions and I think that we have lost a lot of that as we legislate and create policies in this building I think that public trust is being eroded and it's a problem look at I've got all Okay. Signals legislative intent for future interpretation, and that's why we use it in our statutory language regarding a lot of bills. And it counters influence from lobbyists or special interests, provides political clarity, and a principled stance. Fair and impartial is about requiring the system to operate on neutral, consistent and transparent rules not shifting standards depending on the individual the issue or the political climate and again i think that that's the fairness of this amendment i do like the bill i do think that all of our i've told you i'm getting the calls i do believe that we all want the clear language there's just a piece of this that we just can't cross the finish line on so I would really love to have support of this amendment, and I urge... I'm going to keep talking while she comes down. There is...

I just wanted to thank, again, the conversation. I also want to think I agree fully with the idea behind fair and impartial. I think it's also already covered. So please let us know.

thank you madam chair six minutes and 15 seconds remaining so I wanted to take a minute and thank I suspect that some interested parties are listening in today to this debate And I just wanted to thank them. I wanted to thank them for coming to committee on Monday. I also wanted to thank them for sticking around after the committee ended, while after normal business hours, to chat with me and to say, hey, Rep Luck, we'd really like to get you to a yes on this bill. And the truth of the matter is I very much would like to get to a yes on this bill. I very much would. I believe that the title board should be able to set ballot titles that are brief, as was pointed out about the 1954 ballot titles, that are written using accessible language defined further, as was pointed out in a prior I appreciated the reading specialist and doctor of education who came in and provided us with examples and said this is the same ballot title written as we write it now versus written how it could be if these standards were in place. And the one that was what it could be, definitely easier to understand. I appreciate that there is a desire not to allow for conflicting, which is already current law of the ballot titles, and that we are continuing to desire for the standard to be that a question is clearly a yes or no. Appreciate that that's not being touched. Why I will continue to be a no, though, is as relates to that financial language and the shifting of that information from the very beginning to the end, or the middle, or wherever it makes sense. I'm concerned about what that will mean for our taxpayer bill of rights and for the citizens' understanding that has been built over decades that if there is a fiscal impact to a question, that fiscal impact comes from the beginning. It is noted at the top. I'm concerned that this will actually add greater confusion because people have come to expect that language to be stated first. I also believe the bill sponsor when she says there is nothing apart from seeking clear language at play here. And I believe that if this bill was introduced in my first year in office, there would have been a lot less hesitancy about some of these things. But we look at policies not in a vacuum. we look at them in light of a larger conversation in context. And the conversation that has been happening in Colorado, especially for the last couple of years, includes a desire to erode the Taxpayer Bill of Rights And so there are some that believe that even if this is not designed to be such that in practice, using linguistic and grammatical approaches will erode that particular structure. Moreover, there has been a conversation about successful ballot titles that have impacted on the state's budget in a way contrary to what many on this floor of this building would otherwise desire or have chosen. And so it is...

So it is part of the lens through which we now cannot unsee this bill. It is part of that larger conversation that makes us look at this policy and say, how is it going to impact on these other issues that are important to people in our district? And so once again, I reiterate my gratitude to the bill sponsors for their engagement today. I am grateful for their desire to make sure that everyone in our state can participate in this important process of being able to self-govern. We are unique in our government structure, and I also want to do what can be done to preserve it. And so with that, I will be a respectful no, but thank you very, very much.

Madam Majority Leader.

I move to lay over the balance of the special orders calendar until tomorrow.

I move the committee rise and report.

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs the report is under consideration of the following attached bills, being the second reading they're open, making the following recommendations they on House Bill 1320 is amended Passed on second reading Ordered and grossed in place on the calendar for third and final passage House Bill 1195 and Senate Bills 88 and 118 Laid over until March 26, 2026.

House Bill 1320.

move to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and adopting the following DeGraff Amendment L6 to House Bill 1320. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1320 is amended passed.

Just make sure I have the right one. I move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee. Representative DeGraff,

to the Committee of the Whole Report. All right, I move the first draft amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.

So this was just getting back to the purpose of bringing these was to address, just like my colleague ended with, that we're talking about being on the same page with this bill and then just asking that there are some guardrails be placed around this bill and the intent of this bill so the bill does not go outside of those boundaries which are laid out. And then when those boundaries are rejected, then that creates the issue. So I wanted to bring the opportunity again to just put the boundaries on what the sponsor said the intent was in order to foster an improved environment of trust. And what we wanted was this, because not just understanding the language of the bill and not just creating a non-run-on sentence, but we do want to make sure that we do not omit fiscal material, regulatory or legal consequences of the proposed law or constitutional amendment. And then it does not use persuasive emotion or advocacy-oriented language. So again, from what the sponsors had said, this would be within the intent of the law. The reason for putting this language in, it does not complicate the law. It is a clarifying amendment, and it just keeps the bill from going outside of what the sponsor intended. And then the second amendment, or the second port of that, was just really to state that again in the second spot. And again, from what the sponsor said, this is the intent of the bill. we just want to make sure that the bill statutorily remains inside the intent of the bill.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first DeGraff Amendment, to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

No.

Please close the machine. With 19, I, 42, no, and 4 excused, the amendment is lost.

Representative DeGraff, move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following DeGraff Amendment, L7 to House Bill 1320. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1320 is amended passed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the second DeGraff Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.

And then this is just to kind of along that same line. Again, there's some areas because we're making these modifications. And I would, you know, they just put boundaries on top of what the stated intent was. And that was when you're talking to the audience, audience without sacrificing neutrality or omitting material consequences of the measure. So that just creates, when you're going through this section, that it just creates basically a checkbox to make sure that while you're creating the neutral language, that you're creating the understandable language, that you're making sure that the language is comprehensive and comprehensible, and making sure that the individuals understand the consequences of their vote, not just the language of the ballot measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment just because the language and the audience itself is already being protected in our bill. We're already making sure that there's clear, concise guidelines, and this only just further, you know, unfortunately, does not work with the bill itself. So I think overall we want to make sure that the language is protected, and of course the audience and the bill drafters are able to work without more further guardrails.

Representative Morrow votes no.

With 20 aye, 41 no, and 4 excused, the amendment is lost. The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

Flannell and Richardson. Please close the machine. With 41 I, 20 no and 4 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Members, any additional announcements? Representative Froelich.

Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.

The balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the House will stand in recess until later today. Thank you. .