March 25, 2026 · Judiciary · 12,130 words · 22 speakers · 117 segments
Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Today is Wednesday, March 25th. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Senators Carson. Present.
Doherty. Here.
Henriksen. Here.
Wallace. Present.
Zamora Wilson. Present.
Robert. Here.
Mr. Chair. Here.
All right. Everyone is present. I will begin by noting a few logistics. We have three bills on our agenda. They are 1134, 1089, and 1058, all House bills. Also, Vice Chair Roberts had notified me that he has a number of bills to present, I think three of the four bills in the Agriculture Committee. So if he is out of the room, that is why. Given that I will be presenting the first bill, 1134, and given that Senator Roberts needs to pop right upstairs to present other bills in another committee, I'm going to ask Senator Wallace to preside over the first part of this hearing and then we'll get going.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll give you a minute to get down. Senator Weissman, we would love to hear about 1134, sir.
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I want to start by noting that I am covering for my co-prime, Senator Amabile, today. As members know, the Budget Committee is feverishly trying to conclude their work and close the budget so that the rest of us can take it up, starting in the House. She and I communicated in advance. I offered to handle the presentation here so she can stay locked in on that work, which is in its most important phase. but I believe in credit where it's due, and I want the record to reflect that she is every much as part of this as I am and has been since fall of 24, probably, when both of us started to become involved in the issue in advance of what was HB 251147 that this committee had quite a hearing on last year and ultimately ended up being vetoed for reasons that are not really germane to this bill. The subject of 1147 was parity between various practices of municipal courts and the state court system. 1147 dealt with sentencing, access to counsel, and payment mechanisms for counsel, and also just access to proceedings and court transparency. We had the biggest discussion and debate last year about the sentencing aspect of that bill. One of the reasons I believe the governor disfavored that at that time was there was a pending, pretty consequential state Supreme Court case arising out of Westminster that ended up being answered, ruled upon in a way I was personally glad to see. and in effect it said that where you have low-level criminal offense and the elements are lined out a certain way a municipal court with an offense in a municipal code with basically the same elements cannot hand out a stiffer sentence more of a sentence than the state law would provide. They can certainly apply the same sentence. So the court has substantially answered that part of what was 1147, maybe not entirely answered, but that's why we don't take it up in 1134. So then what is 1134? It's the other two parts of the parity conversation that we started last year. Access to the proceedings or transparency and simply provisions about council. Briefly, sections 1 and 4 touch on access to our some conforming amendments. and then provisions about access to counsel are three and six, and you'll find a little bit of language in Section 5 dealing with the phenomenon of courts not of record. There aren't many of these in the state at any rate. So I'll stop there in case there are questions. Madam Chair, we're not aware of any remaining opposition or even amending positions. I appreciate the conversations that we've had, not just this year, but going back to last year and maybe even late 2024 with the Municipal Judges, the Municipal League, and other folks, some of whom you may hear from today.
Thank you so much, Senator Weissman. Members, are there questions for our sponsor? Got it. Seeing none, we'll move into the witness phase. Sorry. Great. We'll move into witnesses, sir. So first, we will call up kind of a mixed panel. Alita Solier, Bonnie Hoffman, Alison Coombs, and Jennifer Jones. I think Alita and Jennifer and potentially Bonnie are all online. Hi. We'll start in person here with you. If you would like to introduce yourself and state your name, you'll have three minutes.
I'm Bonnie Hoffman. I am the...
How about now? Perfect.
I'm Bonnie Hoffman. I'm the Director of Public Defense with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And I want to speak to you all today about one specific provision of HB 1134, and that is the end of the use of flat fee contracting for public defense services. Flat fee contracts not only undermine our adversarial system of justice. in the long run, they really cost communities much more than they save. A study that was done in North Carolina compared outcomes for appointed attorneys' work, paid an hourly rate against the work done by those receiving flat fee contracts, and they found that those with flat fee contracts had an 11% higher conviction rate and a nearly 40% increase in the number of people who were incarcerated or receiving a jail sentence. In 2025, the state of California did a report about incarceration in their state, and they found that eight of the ten counties that had the highest incarceration rate were all counties that used flat feet contracting, including every county in the top five in their state And recently our organization supported some work around why people waive counsel in misdemeanor cases We found there were two driving factors One was a lack of understanding and appreciation about the seriousness of people's charges, and the second was quite frankly a distrust in the quality of the representation that they would receive. Allowing flat fee contracting here in Colorado would perpetuate both of those concerns. Flat fee contracts put an attorney's incentives directly at odds with that of their client. The more a client wants to challenge their case, the less an attorney makes. The more meetings a client with a mental health issue or a disability might need to understand their case, the less money that attorney is earning to pay their staff. And the more time a lawyer spends reviewing discovery, body camera footage, and digital data, the less time they have for their retained cases. These contracts often also place no limits on workloads and encouraging attorneys to have a meet and plead them type of practice. And they require usually costs for critical services like investigations and experts to be taken out of those contracts, disincentivizing attorneys from using those very important resources. In fact, research on those practices in places like Indiana and Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas consistently show less investigation and less client engagement with flat fee contractors over their public defense peers. And when we undercut a meaningful defense, we know that we really undercut public safety, increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions, increasing the length of sentences, decreasing opportunities to connect people to important services, and most importantly, failing to be a meaningful check on government abuse and overreach. Practices that award public defense representation to the lowest bidder really reinforce the notion that these lawyers are there just to check a box and to process a person and not to be a meaningful adversary of the government or an advocate for the accused. Even when flat fee contractors are zealous, the perception that their defense representation has been auctioned off to the lowest bidder causes the public to lose confidence in these. That's why a number of states have actually banned the use of flat fee contracting. We'd ask the Colorado Act to close the justice gap and ensure that those who are appearing in municipal courts have the same constitutional protections as those in state court and would ask that you vote in favor of HB 1134. Thank you so much.
Now we will go online. We'll start with Allison Coombs.
Yes, thank you so much. And thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Allison Coombs. I am the mayor pro tem of the city of Aurora and an at-large council member, but I am speaking as an individual today because city council has not taken a position on this bill. What we were told in committee when discussing this was that the city is in full compliance and this doesn't really affect us. But having spoken with our public defender and many other folks in our community, I know that there are significant issues that we still have. So I'm here to urge you to support this bill. Some of the concerning practices that we've seen include defense counsel not having access to all of the discovery and case information that they need to provide an adequate defense of their clients. For example, our chief judge had to issue an order to ensure that defense counsel had access to Brady letters in hundreds of cases where they would have been provided to defense counsel in the judicial district where the prosecution had access to that information Our defense counsel did not have access to those Brady letters. In addition, at this time, individuals are required to have a separate hearing to access indigent defense counsel. And so folks in a court where we've been told time and again folks fail to appear after their initial hearing, after they've been held in our detention facility, those folks don't get access to the support of defense counsel, to the advice of defense counsel. And they don't end up having a second hearing to get that counsel. And so ensuring that folks have immediate access to counsel is another important way that this bill can support indigent defendants in our city. In addition, our court administration has restricted counsel, our public defenders and defense counsel to accessing their clients in virtual meetings only. So they're not able to have in-person meetings with their clients. And of course, Aurora has also attempted to create a flat fee contract in lieu of the robust and effective and very successful defense counsel that's provided by our city currently. So for these reasons, in relation to Aurora specifically, I urge you to support, but this bill would also protect municipal defendants across our state from unfair practices and ineffective counsel. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Next we'll go to Alida.
Good afternoon. My name is Alida Swallow, and I'm a solo practitioner in Montrose, Colorado. I do court-appointed cases for the municipal court in Montrose, and I'm here to talk about practical implications for the bill and urge you to support it. I can let you know that Montrose was one of the few courts not of record up until either last Thursday or the Thursday before when we officially became a court of record. There are still major questions, though, about what that means and how that plays out. And so a client has given me permission to share her story. My client is charged with numerous counts of trespass and numerous counts of unauthorized camping. Montrose has banned camping in the city limits. She's homeless. She also happens to be a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy who doesn't have a place to live. She accepted a plea offer recently, and it's incredibly important that we continue to have access to hearings for the public and access remotely because there are so many unknowns. I ended up putting together a really complicated chart trying to figure out what the maximum penalty for camping would be because it could be preempted under the CAMP decision from the Colorado Supreme Court in December. Or it could be that the maximum penalty is 90 days, which is the maximum jail sentence for a court not of record. And these cases arose when Montrose Municipal Court was a court not of record. But the city attorney tends to be arguing that the maximum penalty is actually a year in jail, which is permitted by CRS if the court is a court of record, which it now is. And so there are still so many unknowns, even though Montrose has taken a step in the right direction with respect to making the court a court of record. So it's incredibly important that we have continuing access, continuing transparency. And then also the other issue that has arisen in Montrose relates to counsel. I'm not sure that I've ever heard the judge ask if an indigent defendant wants counsel, save for in an instance where someone is incarcerated. That frightens me, and I'm not sure how that conversation happens, if it happens at all. And I usually get an email from the clerk saying, can you accept the case? And the answer is yes. But I have major concerns about access to counsel as well. And so again, would just encourage everyone to support the bill. It's super important with respect to rural jurisdictions like Montrose.
Thank you. Thank you so much. And finally, we will go to Jennifer Jones.
My name is Jennifer Jones, and I'm a social worker with Solutions for the Unhoused based in Montrose. To the best of our knowledge, Montrose is the only city using mandatory jail sentencing for unauthorized camping, which is overwhelmingly conducted by people experiencing homelessness for the purposes of survival. The camping ban ordinance applies to all city zones, which essentially makes it illegal to be homeless in our town. Our municipal court does not live stream its court proceedings for virtual observation historically, and our court has been one of the only courts in the state that sentences people to jail and is not a court of record. As a volunteer court watcher, I have witnessed a homeless, visibly frail man in his late 60s receive no defense counsel while being sentenced to jail for camping. I've witnessed an older, indigent man with a walker be fined the $100 penalty. I've witnessed a homeless defendant with traumatic brain injury. and schizophrenia diagnoses have closed-door plea negotiations with the prosecuting city attorney outside the courtroom at City Hall with no defense counsel present. In response to the expulsive effect of the city's camping ban, the First United Methodist Church of Montrose opened its doors to unsheltered people last winter season. The church employed the principles of harm reduction following the overarching philosophy that keeping people alive and preventing air repairable damage is a higher priority than achieving abstinence from substances in the short term. Even if a person is not in active recovery and treatment for mental health or substance use disorders, it's critical to preserve the person's life. The church offered a safe, stable place with warmth to keep people from freezing to death and a safe, supportive social structure that prevented two potentially fatal overdoses. It is well known in addiction treatment that the use of force does not work to achieve permanent sobriety. If force, court order treatment, and making conditions difficult enough to the extent people actually pursue treatment worked in a sustained way for everyone, we would have solved substance addiction a long time ago. However, we do know that safe, consistent, and supportive human relationships are foundational to recovery. This means understanding that recovery is often a process and relapse is common. It also means the valuation of the life of a person is not contingent on permanent sobriety or the pursuit of recovery which is a tenant both of harm reduction and many people of faith In response to all this the city issued daily zoning violation citations to the church which had it been pursued, would have exceeded $80,000 in fines. The church is currently on a two-year probationary period. This bill will ensure basic constitutional protections are in place at the municipal court level and by extension help address the larger, more pressing concern of the illegality of the poorest of the poor and our locality. Thank you.
Thank you all so much. Members, are there questions for these witnesses? Senator Weissman.
Thank you. No question. Just wanted to say thank you to Councillor Coombs from Aurora for taking the time to speak to this issue from her perspective.
Wonderful. Thank you all so much for being here. Next, we'll go to folks in a neutral position. Owen Brigner, Corin Flanagan, and Jason Lantine. Thank you so much. I think Jason is remote. Perfect. Thank you so much. We'll start in person here. If you could state your name and who you represent, You will also have three minutes. Thank you. Okay.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Corinne Flanagan. I serve as a judge for the city of Lakewood. I am a past president of the Colorado Municipal Judges Association, and I currently chair our organization's Legislative Liaison Committee. I am here today to testify in a neutral position on House Bill 26-1134. The sponsor and prior witnesses have already addressed much of the bill's background, so I won't repeat that history. I do want to begin by acknowledging that our organization is often before this committee in an opposition to propose legislation or in an opposed unless amended position. That is not the case today. A significant reason for our position is the sponsors and stakeholders' willingness to engage in meaningful, good-faith conversations with our organization. Throughout our meetings, they listened carefully to our concerns and were open to making thoughtful adjustments to ensure the bill better reflects the realities of municipal court practice across Colorado. Most notably, the language addressing the appointment of indigent counsel, pages 8 through 10 of the bill, was modified and reorganized to align with how municipal courts actually operate. As many of you will recall from last year's bill and the testimony presented at that time, the vast majority of defendants in municipal court receive a summons and complaint first, directing them to appear in court at a specified date. A bench warrant is then issued only if a defendant fails to appear. The revised language in this year's bill more accurately reflects that process. It now clearly distinguishes between the out-of-custody appointment process, the in-custody appointment process, and the procedure when a defendant remains in custody or is subsequently released. With respect to these provisions, our committee is in a support position. I'm happy to answer any questions about the bill or about the municipal court process more broadly. Municipal courts are the courts most Coloradans will encounter if they interact with the judicial system at all. our judges and court staff work diligently every day to serve their communities and we believe this bill will help us continue that work effectively and responsibly Thank you so much Thank you Sir you will also have three minutes
Thank you, Senator. My name is Owen Brigner, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 99% of all cities and towns in Colorado, testifying in a neutral position. Like the judge said, CML started in an amended position, but thanks to the proponents and sponsors of the bill, Senator Weissman, Senator Mobley, and Representatives Mabry and Velasco CML has been able to move to neutral The collaboration we've had on this bill and their working closely with CML and CMJ over the past several months has been greatly appreciated The bill has evolved for the better Earlier versions included provisions that would have restricted flat fee arrangements for indigent defense counsel in a way that could have resulted in some attorneys being paid less which was not the intent of the sponsors and we were able to find agreeable language there, which has been incorporated. Municipal courts, often referred to as quality-of-life courts, play an important role in Colorado's justice system. Municipal courts handle cases efficiently, provide accessible forums for victims and defendants, and relieve pressure on Colorado's already strained state court system. For most Coloradans, municipal court is their only interaction with the judicial system. CML respects and shares the values of transparency. The bill has already been narrowed at the request of CML and CMJA from applying to all jailable proceedings to only those involving in-custody defendants where jail is a possible penalty, which CML appreciates. And based on feedback from some of our members, the primary concern in this area is less about the availability of technology for the live streaming and more about staffing an adequate time to hire, train, or reallocate staff to manage that technology. For that reason, CML has been requesting an implementation date that aligns with how municipalities budget, which is January to December, rather than how the state budgets June to July. We believe that aligning implementation with the municipal fiscal year allows courts to responsibly plan for any necessary staffing, training, and technology adjustments and would make successful compliance more achievable. CML's goal throughout this process has been to work in good faith with the sponsors to ensure that House Bill 1134 is workable, and given the significant progress that has been made, CML's neutral on House Bill 1134 and appreciates the collaboration from the sponsors. Thanks and
happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Now we'll go online to Jason.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Lontine. I'm the presiding judge for the city of Westminster, but I'm speaking in my capacity as a member of CMJA's legislative committee. And we are here on a neutral position, as Judge Flanagan said. Likewise, I'm primarily here to voice my appreciation for the process that got us to this final bill. There were really good conversations, meaningful conversations amongst many different organizations to include CML, CMJA, CFF, just to name a few. and I also want to thank specifically from CMJA, the sponsors, for their openness to hearing and incorporating feedback on the bill. As with many things, the devil's in the details and that is specifically and particularly true when we're talking about court procedures and processes, how people interact with the criminal justice system, how cases move through the court process And because of all that meaningful stakeholding and people coming into this with open ears and open mind I think 1134 is going to provide very clear direction to municipal courts And it also addressed those practical concerns that were apparent in prior versions of the bill And many of those have been resolved around appointment of indigent defense counsel, remote observation, prompt hearings for in-custody individuals. So CMJ believes that this final version of the bill, it addresses important topics. It does it in a balanced way. And so I just want to thank again the sponsors and the committee here for allowing us the opportunity to share our thoughts on the bill. And I'm happy to answer any questions that any of you may have.
Great. Thank you so much. Members, are there questions for these witnesses? Seeing none, thank you all for being here. we'll next call up Rebecca Wallace Matt Salka who is online Claire Levy who's online and Reverend Kevin Young also online and then Elizabeth Cadiz We'll let you get settled for a minute. Ms. Wallace, maybe if you want to kick us off, please state your name and who you represent.
We'll have three minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rebecca Wallace. I'm the policy director for Colorado Freedom Fund. and I've been working on municipal court issues here at the legislature for more than a decade, first with the ACLU and now with CFF. And over those years, a bipartisan majority of this body has consistently passed legislation that requires municipal courts meet basic constitutional and state standards in their prosecution of criminal cases when jail is on the line. HB 1134 fits precisely in line with those past efforts and the basic premise behind the bill is that whenever any court in this state orders someone's liberty taken away, we should expect that court to follow basic legal standards. And I do think that is happening in the majority of Colorado's more than 200 municipal courts. But we know for a fact that there are several courts that are out of line with Colorado's expectations of basic rights and equal justice. For instance, we have seen municipal courts that do not provide counsel for incarcerated, impoverished defendants. We have seen municipal courts with courtrooms that are literally closed to the public, both in person and online, for their in-custody defendants. And you've heard of this, we know of at least one municipal court, that until this bill brought the issue to light, was not making a record of its court proceedings while enforcing a one-of-a-kind law in this state requiring mandatory minimum jail time for sleeping outdoors. So there are municipal courts that need clear guidance from this body about basic expectations of fairness and fundamental rights, and that's what this bill does. I will close with a note of appreciation for the meaningful and good-faith collaboration with the Municipal Judges Association and the Colorado Municipal League. That resulted in the bill language you'll be voting on today. The collaboration honored the substantive goals of the bill while refining language in a way that ultimately works for all stakeholders and that I agree improved the bill in many ways. It's a real moment when stakeholders who haven't been on the same page about municipal court reform for many years can come together and recognize that state regulation of basic legal standards in any Colorado court is an appropriate exercise of this body's power and responsibility to support the Constitution for all Coloradans. So for equal justice and fairness across the state, please vote yes on HB 1134. Thank you so much.
Ms. Cadiz?
Thank you, Senators. I am Elizabeth Cadiz. I'm the Chief Public Defender in the City of Aurora, and I urge a yes vote on 1134. This last week, last Wednesday, Public Defenders Everywhere celebrated what we call Gideon Day, which is an anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, the case that ensured that people who couldn't afford counsel could have the court appoint counsel when they were facing jail. That's been the law since the 60s, but yet the fight for counsel and municipal courts really didn't start here in Colorado until 10 years ago when in 2016 it became state law finally and municipal courts started getting in line. That said, some municipal courts and municipalities, to Ms. Wallace's point, have long been in compliance with constitutional provisions and to include Aurora. Aurora was the very first municipality to have a public defender and still does today, yet many things have continued to go wrong. And so we're here because we're asking you to set clear expectations, to guarantee the longevity of compliance for good actors and to get bad actors in line. A lot of times municipal court injustice is a result of lack of concrete guidance, and that's just a fact. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation that I think is a great bookend to what started in 2016. You heard from Mayor Pro Tem Coombs, who described how my office has been restricted from seeing our clients in any way besides virtual contact when they're in jail, a building that's attached to my office. And we have been further restricted in terms of getting discovery. This bill, I think, again, just having concrete guidance prevents, you know, the intermittent bad actor or the bad practice here and there by setting a very clear bar. Lastly, I want to talk about a provision that's contained in this bill that really urges courts to take action on requests for writs. A lot of times we see clients that are actually sitting in DOC or in other counties, maybe serving sentences, maybe on other holds, and a warrant from Aurora pops up. Not only is it difficult to figure out how to address that, it's also not always, well, mostly not acted upon when a request for a writ comes through. And that's simply because right now the law could be interpreted to allow courts to delay taking action at all until a municipal hold is the last hold.
With that I take any questions Thank you Thank you so much Next we go online Commissioner Levy if you want to kick us off
Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members, and sponsors of this bill. I'm Claire Levy. I'm a Boulder County Commissioner, and I'm testifying in support of House Bill 1134 on behalf of Boulder County and on behalf of CCAT. House Bill 1134 recognizes the fundamental principle that when an offender faces a risk of loss of liberty, they deserve the full protections of the right to counsel and public proceedings. Back in 1963, in a unanimous decision in Goodyean v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the accused have the assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution. The court reaffirmed previous decisions that held the assistance of counsel is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to ensure fundamental human rights of liberty and life. Municipal offenses are not inconsequential and should not be treated as such. They can become the basis for deeper penetration into the criminal legal system and have lasting effect on a person's life. When they carry the risk of incarceration, then they should be treated as criminal offenses and the defendant should have the benefits of all the trappings of due process that are available to people charged under state statutes. In addition to the right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution creates a right to a public trial. The purpose is to ensure accountability and fairness and keep the public aware of judicial proceedings. It protects the accused by subjecting court proceedings to public scrutiny and ensuring fair procedures through all stages of the trial. The First Amendment is at play as well in that there is a right of the public and the press to attend trials to see their government at work. As with the right to counsel, when an offender is in custody and at risk of incarceration as a penalty, the informality and lack of daylight that may attend lack of transparency are inappropriate. House Bill 1134 is an important and necessary step towards assuring that defendants in municipal prosecutions that carry the risk of deprivation of liberty are accorded the constitutional protections to which they are due. I do want to say I appreciate the collaborative work that has made this bill one that municipalities can support, and Boulder County respectfully requests an aye vote on House Bill 1134. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. Next, we'll go to Reverend Young.
Thank you and good afternoon. I am Kevin Young. I'm the pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Montrose, Colorado, a congregation that is currently serving a 12-month probationary sentence imposed on us with fines by the Municipal Court of Montrose, Colorado. In a nine-month trial, we faced 42 citations for allowing unhoused people to shelter on church property last winter from December 19, 2024 to May 31, 2025. Our probationary sentence began this past November, prohibiting the church from offering shelter on church property this winter. We are clear that the city prosecutorial actions against the church are only one indicator of the city commitment to a program of complete banishment of unhoused people from Montrose Colorado The first indicator appeared in November of 2024 when our city council approved an ordinance banning overnight camping in all public spaces, enforceable by fines and a mandatory 10-day jail sentence after the third offense. This criminalization of the unhoused suddenly dislocated the nearly 300 unhoused individuals in Montrose while offering no alternative spaces even for sleeping. The five and a half months of our sheltering ministry were eye-opening. We saw how the unhoused in Montrose face repeated arrests and re-arrests for camping, for the theft of food and clothing, for failure to appear in court, though they lack transportation, for accumulating unpaid fines they can't afford to pay. In Montrose, the unhoused are hunted with drones. They are jailed and released, often with only the clothes on their backs, their belongings having been confiscated, their dogs having been impounded also with daily fines. They appear in municipal court for proceedings that are not recorded. They face charges without legal representation. In recent weeks, the court indicated that it was considering moving cases involving unhoused persons into private quarters attended only by attorneys and necessary court officers. Our unhoused neighbors are made vulnerable because our municipal court is guided only by laws that reflect the city's priorities and goals. I speak in favor of House Bill 261134 because impoverished and vulnerable people in my city should be treated fairly, humanely, and with dignity. And they should have access to their most basic rights to counsel and to fair proceedings that are recorded and transparent. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak before you today.
Thank you, sir. Now we'll close out with Matt Salka.
Thank you very much, members of the committee. My name is Matt Salka, La Plata County Commissioner, and I'm here today in support of HB 1134. I'm also here on behalf of CCAT, which is in support of this bill. Right now in Colorado, the level of justice someone receives can depend more on the courtroom they're in than the law itself. We have two systems operating side by side, state courts and municipal courts, but they don't always operate under the same standards, even when someone's liberty is at stake. HB 1134 helps bring those systems into alignment by ensuring that defendants in municipal courts have the same basic protections that already exist in state courts, like access to counsel, timely case information, and the ability to meaningfully participate in their case. From a county's perspective, this matters. Counties operate and fund jails. We are on the front lines of dealing with the outcomes of decisions made in municipal courts. When cases are delayed, when individuals don't have proper access to counsel, or when processes lack transparency, those individuals often end up sitting in county jails longer than necessary. And there's another layer to that that's important to understand. Many individuals in our jails on municipal offenses are experiencing homelessness and are charged with low-level poverty-related offenses These are often the most expensive individuals for counties to house due to untreated medical behavioral health and social service needs yet they generally pose little to no risk to public safety County jail beds are funded by county taxpayers They are a limited resource and they should be reserved for individuals who pose a real risk to our communities. When admissible processes contribute to unnecessary or prolonged jail stays for low-level cases, that cost and burden shifts directly to counties. This bill ensures that if someone is going to be prosecuted in a municipal court, they have the same basic due process protections and they would be in a state as they would in a state court. That includes access to legal counsel and the ability for the counsel to have the information and time needed to do their job effectively. When defendants have proper representation and informed up front, cases are more likely to be resolved in a timely manner. That reduces unnecessary jail stays, lower costs, and improves outcomes for everyone involved, from the courts to counties to the individuals themselves. This is not about being soft or hard on crime. This is about making sure that the system works the way it's supposed to and that we are using our limited county resources responsibly. As a county commissioner and on behalf of CCAT, I strongly support the policies that improve efficiencies, reduce unnecessary strain on our jail system, and ensure that we are treating people fairly under the law. I respectfully ask for your support because fairness, efficiency, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars should not depend on which courtroom a person ends up in. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. Members, are there questions for these witnesses? Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here. Okay, so I believe we have just two more folks signed up. Rachel Mercer in person and then Ashley Cordero online. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support of the legislation or in any position? Great. Nope, maybe we don't have. Great. Okay, so seeing no other witnesses, the witness phase is closed. Senator, any amendments? Members' amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Closing statement, Senator Weissman.
All right. Committee, you've heard a pretty good discussion and briefing of the issues. I won't repeat it. I do just want to thank everybody that you've heard from here today. There's been robust discussion before the bill was introduced, after it was introduced. We think we've come to a good place in the interest of transparency and just good operating procedures in our municipal courts. I hope the committee will reward and acknowledge all of that with a yes vote today. Thank you.
Thank you. Members, closing comments? Seeing none, the motion is yours, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1134 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation and ask for a yes vote. That is a proper motion. Please call the roll, ma'am. Senator Carson?
No. Doherty?
Doherty? Yes.
Henriksen? Yes.
Zamora Wilson. No.
Roberts. Excused.
Weissman. Yes.
Wallace. Yes.
That motion passes 4 to 2. Good luck at the cow, sir. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right Senator Snyder has joined us and is ready to present the second of our three bills for the afternoon, 1089. Senator, please take it away.
Thank you, and I apologize for being a little bit late. We were this close to voting, and Senator Bright had some final comments. Nevertheless, thank you very much, Judiciary Committee, Mr. Chair, for hearing the Uniform Modification Act. So just a little history. This was passed at the annual ULC conference and approved for release in 2024. I had originally intended to bring this last
year, but a lot of the stakeholders didn't have a chance to dig in, so we held off a year until we were bringing it back this year. And I'm proud to say we have very little, if any, pushback. We've had some inquiries and stakeholder meetings. But basically, to sum it up, a Uniform Mortgage Modification Act modernizes the law surrounding the modification of mortgages. Mortgage modifications are not uncommon. In residential or commercial, borrowers may avoid foreclosure by modifying their loans. Construction loans are often converted to permanent loans. Credit facilities may be updated periodically to reflect market conditions. Many things can happen requiring a modification to a mortgage. Existing state law creates questions about the effect of modification. And I think really there's two principles here. what this bill does. It does not affect the priority in any way. So if you're in the first lien holder position or the second lien holder position, none of these modifications covered under this Act would affect that. And the other thing that it does is make sure that none of the lien holders will have in any way their interest or their financial interest material affected in any way. Currently, the system leads to delays in higher transaction costs, which are ultimately passed on to the borrower. At worst, it may discourage lenders from considering reasonable requests for modification. It's especially important, I think, where we have a lot of out-of-state lenders, and they may not be aware of Colorado law and may be hesitant to allow for a modification not knowing the law. this uniformity would make it the same in every state that adopts this Act. So really the Act essentially creates safe harbors for specific common modifications. For those modifications within the safe harbor list, and there's roughly 10 categories of safe harbor, but what it makes clear and protects is that the mortgage continues to secure the obligation as modified. The modification does not affect the priority. The mortgage retains its priority regardless of whether the modification agreement is recorded or not, which it doesn't require it but doesn't prevent it either. And it makes clear that the modification is not a novation. So I mentioned the safe harbors. I could go through that list, but like I said, the principles really are that it doesn't do anything to affect the priority or any way to affect the material interest, specifically the financial interest of other lien holders. Like I said it really useful for interstate and multi transactions The Act defers to other state laws for any modifications that are outside of the safe harbor so the current Colorado law will still be in place for those. Other modifications are explicitly excluded from the Act. As I said, it doesn't require recording, but nothing prohibits a party from recording the modification with the clerk. Really, the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act is a game-changer. It benefits borrowers and lenders, large and small, commercial and residential. It facilitates loan modification to avoid foreclosure. The Act makes the law more certain and protects the priority of mortgage modifications within the safe harbors. It adopts an appropriate balance between the rights of the parties to a mortgage to modify their loan and the rights of the parties who have a junior priority to avoid the material prejudice to their position. So really, this is a way, you know, we see a lot of activity in the housing market. Foreclosures move up and down. This is really an easy fix to reduce the costs associated with either going through a foreclosure, process or having to refinance a loan and pay more points and all that. It really is a way to ease the burden on a borrower who may be having trouble making their payments. Maybe you've lost a higher-paying job and had to settle for something less. It would allow the mortgage company to work with you to adjust the terms of your mortgage so that you can stay in your home, basically. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. I know we've got some very learned people to testify today. Thank you.
Committee, any questions of our sponsor at this point? Senator, just to sort of – oh, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. I was thinking – is it okay if I – Yeah, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for bringing this bill, sir. Do you think that mortgage companies will want to do that? Like, do you think there would be willingness on there? In the example you just gave, right, where I lost my job, I need to adjust my rate. do you think that they would be willing to engage in that?
Senator Snyder? Senator Snyder. Mr. Chair, thank you for the question, Madam Vice Chair. I do. I worked in this industry. I was a title attorney, closing attorney for nine years and got to see all manner of transactions with all kinds of different lenders, construction department and others. And what I learned through that process is that mortgage companies don't make out in a foreclosure. You know, by the time they get all the costs together and go through the process, hire an attorney, it's not a moneymaker for them. So I think they'd be much happier to make some of these safe harbor modifications to a loan, keep that person in their home and making payments that they can afford. So I do think it works both equally well for borrowers as well as lenders. Members, other questions? Senator Carson.
I would just echo that, Mr. Chairman, as someone who also has worked in the mortgage world. I'll tell you, it's a lot more expensive to foreclose on somebody than it is to, if you can work with them and get them to modify their mortgage. One of the problems we have is even getting people to get interested in that. A lot of people, it's amazing how many people don't make the contacts. And there's probably a need for more education on that. But my experience is that mortgage lenders really would much prefer to work with borrowers and keep them in the house Senators thank you both for those questions and comments I was sort of just beginning to get involved in the policy world in Colorado in 7 and 8 when the mortgage crisis was starting to crash on us. some of the zip codes in Aurora were among the hardest hit in the state. I mean, we had a dog at that point. You'd go for a walk. I could probably count 10 foreclosed houses in a five-minute radius, and you could tell from the dead lawn, and that testifies to what happens when there's not able to be a modification. So this discussion has usefully teed up the question Senator Snyder, I was going to put to you I guess for clarifying, even for UOC bills, this was a little bit wonky for me to start to chew on and get my head around. But I think the point is, as the last lines of questioning have spoken to, there's a pretty good universe of scenarios where it really would be mutually beneficial. Somebody stays in their home and their whole life and their family's life doesn't get destabilized. the lender takes, in the scheme of a 30-year mortgage that's going to run hundreds of thousands of dollars, they give up relatively little for the security of their continuing to be payments and not have all the headache of a foreclosure and such. But we're sort of just restating the obvious here, it sounds like, in this bill, which is that you don't lose your priority position, et cetera, et cetera. We're giving a little bit of legal stability to the lender so that they don't fear to engage in these small modifications. Fair summary.
Mr. Chair, absolutely. That's a great point. And I think Senator Carson's point is also good. Mortgage companies and lenders can do this now, but it's not really well known out there for folks. And I think this kind of a uniformity that's been well-stakeholded, if you've ever been to a ULC conference, you wouldn't doubt that, with 300 attorneys from 50 states and territories all debating the, you know, maze and shalls of a bill. But I do think that this will hopefully gain a little more momentum and become much more utilized. Thank you. Okay, members, other questions? All right, we'll go to witnesses. I think everybody's online, so Senator, feel free to keep the table. Can we please promote to the Zoom, Representative Ann McGeehan? And do we have Julie Rogers and Seth Holley? All right. I will call on folks in the order that I see you popping up on the Zoom. Mr. Holley, if you can hear us, please go ahead. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Seth holly and i'm in house counsel for a title company i'm here on behalf of the colorado bar association which is taking a support position of the bill um not to repeat any of the uh the testimonies that have been provided but the safe harbors really don't contradict any common law principles that would constitute an ovation or an obligation so it's really narrowly drafted to preserve a junior lien holder's rights and currently there's no colorado statutes that specifically address priority for these types of mortgage modifications. So it's really complementary to Colorado's current statutory scheme. All right, sir. Appreciate the brevity. Ms. Rogers, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair Wiseman and members of the committee. I'm Julie Rogers. I'm a law professor at SMU's Dedman School of Law in Dallas. I served as the reporter for drafting of the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act. And I'm testifying, of course, in support of the act. And thank you, Senator Snyder, for your overview. As he stated, the purpose of the act is to clarify and modernize the law governing mortgage modifications. And again, he mentioned mortgage modifications are common, and in particular, they're common in both residential and commercial loans when a borrower is in trouble. Unfortunately, we don't have full clarity in the law. The clarity issues come up primarily with this issue of priority and whether a junior lien holder might be promoted. And so because of that, lenders are sometimes not willing to agree to even reasonable modifications that benefit both parties out of fear that they could lose priority or have to litigate priority. And thus, modifications, even when they occur, may be more costly. And if they don't occur, may lead to a foreclosure. So Senator Snyder mentioned the safe harbors and father 10. I'm just going to mention some that are particularly common for homeowners who are facing foreclosure. So common for common modifications in that case would be extending the maturity of a loan, reducing the interest rate, capitalizing unpaid interest or escrow payments and debt forgiveness. for modifications within the safe harbor, as Senator Snyder said. We know for sure then that the mortgage continues to secure that obligation as modified. Priority is protected. Priority remains regardless of whether a modification agreement is recorded. And then with regard to the innovation, that just means there's no loss of security for the loan. Regarding the issue of recording. We learned in the committee drafting committee that a requirement to have a modification agreement acknowledged by a notary public can pose an impediment for residential borrowers. So for safe harbor modifications, recording is not necessary to preserve priority. Colorado, like many other states, does have a statute of limitation for mortgages that begins to run at maturity of the loan, as shown in the recorded mortgage. So lenders will still want to record a modification agreement when the maturity of the loan is extended. In most cases, they can do that. And the Colorado Act specifically mentions that statute. For non-safe harbor modifications, the common law still applies. But the Act creates certainty and it provides significant benefits to both barbers and lenders. And I encourage you to support the bill and welcome your questions. All right. Thank you, ma'am. I'm confirming we didn't have Rep. Rand McGeehan. No. Okay. Committee questions of our witnesses. Ms. Rogers, to your last point, what would be an example of a non-safe harbored modification not under the bill and thus subject to common law? The list here is pretty comprehensive. What would remain? Well, increasing the interest rate and increasing the principal are things that under common law do cause a loss of priority, Usually a split priority if it an increase in the principal where the first lien holder maintains priority up to the original amount and then the second lender jumps in then the original lender for that increased amount So that's the situation. And then, you know, I did modifications of commercial loans and there just can be all sorts of there might be all sorts of unusual modifications where you would look to common law. Although really the only cases that that are litigated are increases in interest rate increases in principle, kind of the ones that do affect junior lien holders for the most part. But there's there are cases that that capitalization is one that can cause issues yet, you know, without capitalization, you may have total foreclosures. So but again, the things that are that are that are not covered as safe harbors may or may not cause a loss of priority. You just look to common law. OK, appreciate that. And then for a moment, I was thinking if there's any intersection to order of priority in UCC Article nine. But I think that's generally personal property, not real property. I don't think Colorado has departed from that in a way that would cause an intersection, but thought I would ask. This deals only with real property. Okay. Seeing none. All right. No. Members, other questions for any of our witnesses? We're seeing none. Thank you both for taking the time to testify with us today. Final call in our packed room for any witnesses. Seeing none racing forward, we'll close the witness phase. Senator Snyder, have you any amendments? No, sir. Committee amendments to 1089. I see none. Amendment phase is closed. Wrap up comments. Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the professor and Mr. Holley for their testimony. I feel the committee was denied former Representative Ann McGeeran's opening comments about the Uniform Law Commission. I could attempt to recreate them for her if you would like me to, but absent that, I would just say this has really been well-stakeholded. We took an extra year to get it right in Colorado. They put on one minor amendment over in the House, and I think the lack of any concern or opposition being expressed is a testament to that. So this is really a helpful bill that will, I think, really, if it takes off and gets some traction, it will really become a very useful tool. I mean, I started out back in the days of reverse amortization mortgages and 16%, 17% interest rates, and watched the market ever since as it's gone up, down, sideways, and this will cover all eventualities. And I think it will be a beneficial adoption of this to the folks in Colorado, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Senator. Senator Henriksen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my vote may be contingent on the sponsor's reenactment that was aforementioned.
Senator Wallace, did you have a question?
Was that a question?
You offered, so I want to see it. I think I'll go with the Chair's facial expression and politely decline. I was thinking about inviting you to take us back to the statute of uses and sort of connect the present bill to 500 years of property law, but let's not do that. I appreciate the bill. I do hope it comes to be adopted. I thinking back to something that our nonpartisan staff economists have mentioned for us in a couple of recent quarterly forecasts about the increase they seeing in the incidence of credit card delinquency It's a real microeconomic warning sign, I think. So I would love it if the clarity that this bill seeks to provide to facilitate modification doesn't end up being necessary en masse like it was 20 years ago. but useful to have on the books regardless. So with that, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move House Bill 261089 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation.
Proper motion. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Senators Carson.
Yes. Doherty.
Yes. Henrickson. Aye.
Wallace. Aye. Zamora Wilson. Aye.
Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay, the vote is... Robert's excused. Robert's excused.
Vote is 6-0. Congratulations, and thank you, Senator.
Madam Vice Chair. Would you like the consent calendar, sir, you feel? Yes, please. Great. I make a motion to put this on the consent calendar by reverse roll call. Can I do that? Don't need reverse roll call.
Oh, I would like to put it on the consent calendar, sir, however we may do that.
Very good. Proper motion. Committee seeing no objection, 1089 will be on consent. Thank you, Senator. All right, and thank you, Senator Ball, for being ready to go. Take a minute to get situated at the table, and please begin with any opening comments on 1058 when you'd like. Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and thank you members of Judiciary Committee. I am excited to be here to talk to you about House Bill 1058 today. House Bill 1058 is pretty simple. It's an extension of what's called Coogan's Law, which is a very famous law in California that protects child actors. It's an extension of that to the digital age that recognizes that in the age of social media and influencers, There are basically child actors who are popping up in all kinds of states who deserve the same financial protection. For some background, there was a very famous case involving Jackie Coogan, who starred in the Adams family that led to Coogan's Law in 1939 in California. And that's the law that has essentially required the parents of a child actor to create a trust. so if you are profiting off of a child who is acting and being paid for acting that law requires you to put some money in a trust so that that kid is allowed to access that money when they become an adult I brought up a list many famous child actors turned stars who benefited from this from Shirley Temple to Macaulay Culkin Drew Barrymore, Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen twins Kenan Thompson, that's about a third of the list. But it applies to a lot of people. And what this bill does is it basically extends that same construct to child stars for online content. And this is a growing number of laws that have passed in recent states, in Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, California, Minnesota, and Utah. And what it requires is similar to Coogan Law a trust that is set aside for a percentage of gross earnings of a child if certain thresholds are met and the adults are profiting off of that child appearing on social media The other thing this bill does is it provides a right to removal for former child stars and child participants. So social media companies are required to take down certain content if it is requested from a minor who then becomes an adult and would like some of that content taken down. And then lastly, it provides, I'm sorry, it prohibits parents and guardians from intentionally sexualizing children for financial gain and creates a private cause of action for damages. We have one expert who will testify today who I think can answer lots of questions in more depth than I can, but happy to answer any questions about this bill. And again, thank you for having me. I encourage an aye vote. Very good. And members, any opening questions of our sponsor? Seeing none, I think we may only have one witness. On the Zoom, can we please promote Melissa Fanz, F-A-N-S-Z? All right. Ms. Fanz, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm Melissa Faust and I'm speaking today on behalf of YouTube in support of HB 1058. We thank the sponsors for this legislation, which provides additional protections for minors featured in their parent or guardians' monetized content. For brevity, I refer to these individuals as Kitfluencers. At YouTube, we invest heavily in the safety and well-being of our young users, whether they are watching content or participating in content creation, and we have a variety of protections in place for our young creators. We appreciate the thoughtful approach in HB 1058, which contemplates financial protections for current kidfluencers, privacy removals for former kidfluencers, and additional tools to prevent financial gain from the intentional sexualization of minors across the board. We think this is a balanced approach, which is centered on the best interests of the kidfluencers themselves and places reasonable expectations and responsibilities on both creators and platforms, including ourselves. The compensation requirement has a threshold that means only creators making significant income by heavily featuring their children and content are included. By requiring the parent creators to calculate the amount that they must deposit into their child's trust account, the language ensures that revenue sharing with the child is inclusive of sponsorships and other forms of content monetization that are arranged and executed independent of the platform where the content is posted. the privacy piece, YouTube already has in place an easy-to-access process to flag privacy violations and request takedown of personally identifying information. We support the requirement for platforms to have this type of mechanism and to reasonably take action to comply with legitimate removal requests if the creator fails to. Adults who are featured in content when they were minors may not have the resources to pursue legal means to protect their privacy. In these cases, a process like this provides an accessible way for individuals to have a say in how they show up online. And finally, the intentional sexualization piece is critical to provide additional tools to combat exploitative behavior. There have been a number of reports in the media and documentaries in the last few years detailing an alarming trend where some adults have profited from the intentional sexualization of children. Much of the reported behavior does not meet the legal threshold to be prosecuted under CSAM laws. So this bill requires platforms to be aware of this behavior, take a steps to mitigate it when known, and a civil action which allows victims to receive a measure of restitution for the harms done to them and act as a deterrent for adults who are not acting in a child's best interest. It's for these reasons we are so pleased to support HB 1050A, and we appreciate your committee's consideration of it. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding YouTube support of this legislation. All right, thank you. Members, questions for our witness? Senator Carson, go ahead. Just jurisdiction-wise, is this applied to the parents or the child living in Colorado,
or how do we sort that out with all this online action?
Sure, Ms. Vance, go ahead, and then Senator Ball, if you want to take a crack at that, too. fantastic as as far as as i'm aware this this is state law so and it would apply to to residents and content created within the the state of colorado senator ball yeah i think i appreciate the question senator carson i think short answer yes this would apply uh to parents and children in colorado members other questions of our witness all right seeing none um thanks ma'am for taking the time to testify. Confirming no other witnesses online. All right. No one rushing forward in the room. We'll close the witness phase. Senator Ball, we do all have L-22 now if you want to tell us about the amendment. Do you want me to move it first? Sure. Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-22 to
House Bill 1058. All right. Good motion
to the amendment. Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a clarification
amendment that we are including just to make clear that this doesn't apply to news programming and also to telecommunications providers. I think that was clear in the initial bill, but just belt and suspenders at the request from some stakeholders, we are including it here.
All right. Members, any questions about the amendment? Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. How are you defining a news organization?
Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a great question. I'm happy to follow up on that. I know when this question has come up in the context of other bills, there have been reference to other statutory definitions of news organizations. To be honest, I would have to check on whether this uses that same language, but I'm happy to follow up with you on that separately. I think there may be an answer in the back of the room. Mr. Schultz. We have help here. We have somebody who knows more than I do. On a friend. If you want to just note your name and role for the record, and please illuminate us. Mr Schultz Thank you Mr Chairman My name is Josh Schultz I an attorney with Legislative Legal Services
and the term news organization is defined in the bill. It was an amendment put in the House. It's on page three, and it's an entity whose primary purpose is the publication or dissemination of news, sports, or other editorial content selected by the publisher rather than user-generated content. Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for indulging me. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, sir. I'm curious because this is a debate that I've been engaging in with members of our press. So can you tell me, was that a statute written for this particular bill in this definition on that page 3, or is that a definition that has previously been used?
Mr. Schultz.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. As far as you can go, and then if we are verging into sponsor intent, we'll invite Senator Ball to speak to that. Yes, thank you, Senator. We are not cross-referencing another definition. I can double check and see if that language is anywhere else in statute right now. I don't remember off the top of my head, but if you give me 10, 15 seconds here, I'll double check and see if that definition exists exactly as is anywhere else in the CRS. And in the meantime, Senator Wallace, it happens. Senator Wallace and I were just chatting about this. I think there are some interesting nuances here that I won't steal anyone else's thunder on, but I think the distinction you're driving at with this definition, at least, is user-generated content, which is really the focus of a lot of the rest of the bill, versus where something is not just sort of curating or algorithmically delivering user content, but rather what is written, put out into the world in the first instance by the organization. And not that there might not still be other questions, but is that fair so far?
Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's exactly right. You took the words out of my mouth. And I apologize. I should have seen that that had been added to the bill in the House. But, yeah, I think it's that last clause that's really the operative clause around, like, is this something that was put up by the user, or is this somebody who ended up on TV because a TV program was doing something else related to the news and that person ended up on camera.
Mr. Schultz, I just did a quick search. I don't see news organization in quotes in CRS anywhere, but maybe there's a slightly different variation on that. Mr. Schultz. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. That language is nowhere else in statute, so it is new at least to the CRS.
Okay. I good Thank you so much Bigger thicket there Senator Ball let keep you out of it I did have a different question So you cross I guessing
that's bedrock federal telecommunications law in 47 U.S.C., and then maybe we've never gotten as far as a statutory definition for broadband service, so we're citing regs. Is it, now I'm sort of inviting commentary on sponsor intent, depending on what different units, if you will, of a consolidated company might be doing, is it possible that you could be exempted, one part of an enterprise could be exempted because it's effectively a telecommunications service, but if you are meeting the elements of the bill, otherwise a different part of the enterprise could be within. That seems to follow from what you're doing here and the limited scope of these definitions in federal law, but I thought I'd invite you to comment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I understand the question correctly, I think the idea here is, it's almost hard for me to think of a hypothetical where this would come into play, frankly. But I think what is envisioned by telecommunications providers, broadband providers, is they want to prevent a future suit that comes after them as a platform when clearly the intent of the bill is to apply to online platforms like social media, places where you have child stars. So I don't think we ever read the bill as allowing for a very creative cause of action that would get to somebody like an AT&T, but we just wanted to make that clear to ensure that it's not interpreted in that way. I hope that helps.
Thank you. And I didn't read the bill that way either. Let me make up a crazy example. In some future world, T-Mobile has merged with Meta. T-Mobile isn't in the bill. You're not about them. But the Meta half of the house under ABC holding company could be. You don't mean, I don't know if there's a single fact situation where this exists now, but we see consolidation in the industry. In that future world where ABC Holding Company has bought T-Mobile and Meta, I would read the bill as amended as amounting to T-Mobile can't be subject to the bill or sued under the bill, but Meta could be if they don't comply with requirements. Fair? Senator Ball?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that's right. And I think the semantic difference here is probably in the word service. That an amendment L022 versus what in the rest of the bill On page 3 section 6A starting on line 21 the definition of a hosting platform really hinges on service or application And so I think in that case, the application could be liable, like if YouTube gets purchased by AT&T or something like that, not the service that's providing telecommunications.
Thank you.
Now we're into the open systems integration seven-layer model, so I'm going to stop. Members, other questions on L22? All right. Is there objection to the adoption of L22? Seeing none, L22 is adopted. Senator, further amendments?
No further amendments, Mr. Chair.
Committee, amendments to 1058. Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Wrap up comments.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our intrepid drafter for coming here and helping us out with those questions. I will belabor the point. Good bill vote yes. I think this is a good bill that helps protect kids in Colorado and encourage an aye vote.
All right. Thank you. Members, any closing comments?
Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the sponsor and drafter for indulging that conversation, which I assure you was not really about this bill. I appreciate this legislation. I think that when I was talking with the chair and other supporters of it, We were talking about the 1930s law and how much of that was based in kind of the time that it was framed in, right? 1930s, you would have seen studio lots in Hollywood. Like, that's where content was being created. And we're now in a modern era where this is very applicable throughout the States because content is created by kids all throughout the U.S. And so we really need to start taking actions in this. And then, of course, I appreciate the further provisions around just ensuring kids can own their own content and aren't being exploited in any number of ways. I think it's done very thoughtfully and appreciate your approach to the modern version of this issue. So thank you very much, Senator.
Members, any other closing comments? Seeing none of the motions to the come, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1058 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. As amended with a favorable recommendation.
Proper motion. Thank you, Ms. Jensen, for the catch. Now, please call the roll.
Senators Carson?
Yes.
Doherty?
Yes.
Henriksen?
Aye.
Zamora Wilson?
No.
Roberts excused. Wallace?
Aye.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, and the vote is 5-1. Congratulations, Senator Ball. Thank you. All right. Committee, that's it for today. We will be meeting both days next week. It's looking like a light week so far, but we'll be continuing to watch what the House sends over to us and possibly getting some other bills ready that are still getting worked on. But until then, judiciary is adjourned.