An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
by Ashley Zimmerman
Somehow, somewhere, in Colorado in 1937, the governor’s office appeared to have a mole problem. The names of judicial and political appointees were being published in the Denver Post before the appointees had even been notified. Teller Ammons, the colorful and somewhat profane governor of the state, was upset and confused. Who could possibly be leaking his information to the press? (more…)
While your bill is still in the possession of the OLLS, any other member may let the Office know that he or she wants to be a sponsor on your bill. The member can notify the OLLS in person, by phone, or in writing, including e-mail, and we will add his or her name to your bill. Also, there are sponsor sheets available in the OLLS front office. If you have other members initial this sheet and you return it to the OLLS, we will also add these members as sponsors.
Once your bill is delivered to you by the sergeant-at-arms, you may have other members sign on as sponsors by having them sign their names on the sponsor sheet inside the back cover of your bill. The names of all members that sign this sheet will be added to the bill before it is printed. Remember that you can’t add sponsors to a bill this way if the bill is delivered directly to the front desk.
As you may recall, one of your bills must be introduced on the first day of session. Since the Office must deliver this bill directly to the front desk before the legislative session starts, you can only have other members sign on as sponsors of your first bill if, before we deliver your bill to the front desk, they drop by, call, or email the OLLS or you turn in an initialed sponsor sheet.
As you’re probably aware, Joint Rule 24 (b) (1) (A) allows a member of the General Assembly to introduce only five bills during a regular session of the legislature. However, there are many circumstances under which you may be able to introduce more than just five bills.
If you sponsor one or more interim committee bills, they will not count against the limit. And, you can sponsor an interim committee bill even if you don’t actually serve on the interim committee. But the bill must be approved by the Legislative Council before it can be introduced. See Joint Rule 24 (b) (1) (D).
Bills for appropriations and bills introduced by the audit committee, the joint budget committee, the capital development committee, the legislative council, the executive committee, the committee on legal services, the legislative emergency preparedness, response, and recovery committee, or the commission on uniform state laws also do not count against the bill limit.
Also, each year certain committees of reference participate in the sunset review process. Through this process, a committee reviews reports from the department of regulatory agencies concerning the continuation or repeal of state programs and advisory committees and the committee reviews certain statutory reporting requirements. The committee then introduces bills to either continue or repeal the programs, advisory committees, or reporting requirements, and these bills do not count against the five-bill limit.
Finally, you may seek permission for extra bills from the Committee on Delayed Bills for the house in which you serve. In the House of Representatives, the Committee on Delayed Bills consists of the Speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders. In the Senate, it’s the President of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders. To introduce more than five bills, you will need the signature of two of the three members of your delayed-bill committee.
by Michael Dohr
Are you interested in the U.S. Constitution’s limits on the General Assembly’s authority or how the Colorado Supreme Court interprets our statutes? For the last ten years, I have presented a program that covers the previous year’s cases from the U.S. and Colorado Supreme Courts focusing mostly on those themes. Here are some of the highlights from this year; information on the complete program is at the end of this article. (more…)
The title of a bill provides notice to the public as to the contents of the bill. Article V, section 21 of the State Constitution requires that a bill contain only one subject and that the subject be “clearly expressed in its title…”. The title must also state the purpose of the bill. This means the title must accurately reflect the substance of the bill without being so broad as to violate the Constitution’s single subject requirement.
The bill title not only tells the public what’s in the bill, but it controls the amendments that may be added to the bill as it goes through the legislative process. Because the title expresses the single subject and purpose of the bill, an amendment that would add a subject or language that is broader than the title would arguably add a second subject to the bill in violation of the single-subject requirement. For this reason, the chairperson of the committee in which the amendment is offered may rule the amendment out of order.
If a bill is introduced with a broad title, a legislator may offer an amendment to narrow the title so that it is more specific as to the provisions in the bill. A legislator may also try to narrow a bill title in order to control the amendments that can be offered to the bill. Remember, however, that another legislator can offer an amendment at any time to broaden the title back to its introduced form. So, tightening a title after a bill is introduced, with the goal of limiting the possible amendments, is unlikely to be successful, because another member may amend the title back to the introduced version to allow for his or her substantive amendment.
A legislator may also try to amend a title to make it broader than the introduced version. While there’s no actual rule that says a legislator cannot broaden an introduced title, by custom and practice these amendments are generally not allowed. Logically, if the introduced bill title is a single subject, the effect of broadening it would be to allow for one or more additional subjects — a clear violation of the constitutional single-subject requirement.
by Julie Pelegrin
On August 12, 2011, Denver district court judge Michael Martinez issued a 68-page order shutting down the Douglas County voucher program known as the “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” (voucher program). The voucher program was designed to allow up to 500 Douglas County students to enroll in a private school of their choice and to receive a voucher from the school district, payable to the private school, for $4,575 or the amount of tuition, whichever is less. (more…)
Yes. In addition to the statutory requirements of the Colorado Open Records Act, the General Assembly has adopted specific policies related to public records and e-mail. These policies are available on the General Assembly’s website at the “Open Records Policy & Requests” link near the top of the left side of the page, and are attached here. The policies address issues such as how a person may submit an open records requests, how a person may have access to inspect public records, and what types of documents are considered public records. The policies also provide recommendations to legislators for classifying e-mails for retention or deletion. You may follow these recommendations or you may establish in writing your own system for classifying e-mails.
by Holly Mandis
This November, a single citizen-sponsored initiative will appear on the ballot: Proposition 103, the Temporary Tax Increase for Public Education. State Senator Rollie Heath, who initially proposed the idea, turned in 142,000 signatures, and, on August 24, 2011, Secretary of State Scott Gessler certified Proposition 103 for the November ballot.
Proposition 103 creates a five-year “timeout” from education funding cuts. It seeks to increase school funding by raising the sales and use tax rate from the current 2.9% to 3.0% and the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 5.0%. These increases would be in effect from 2012 to 2017 and are anticipated to raise an additional $3 billion for schools over those five years. The proposal allows the additional revenue to be used only for public schools and the state’s higher education system and prevents the General Assembly from using the new revenue to supplant existing funding. The measure also establishes the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2011-12 for public elementary and secondary schools and higher education as a floor. The General Assembly would decide how to allocate the additional funding.
For fiscal year 2011-12, the General Assembly appropriated $3.7 billion for preschool through high school education and $624 million for higher education. Combined, this spending on public education represents about 50% of the total general fund moneys appropriated. Direct state funding for public education has declined in the past few years; for fiscal year 2011-12, the General Assembly made cuts of $228 million. Some of the reductions have been offset by local community tax contributions and by increases in tuition rates and fees, in addition to private donations.
Supporters of the measure say that a long-term economic recovery in the state will rely on a highly educated workforce and that businesses value a good public education system for the benefits it provides to business and its employees. Supporters also point out that, since 2006, tuition costs for higher education for in-state students have increased by 43%, and the proposed tax increase is needed to offset those increased costs. Proposition 103 restores tax rates to 1999 levels, and proponents argue that this very small temporary tax increase will allow policymakers additional time to implement a long-term solution for education funding.
Opponents of the measure say that raising taxes during this economic downturn will slow Colorado’s economic recovery. Charging people and businesses more in taxes may result in lower consumer spending and business investment, and raising sales taxes disproportionately burdens lower- and middle-income consumers. Opponents also contend that Proposition 103 lacks accountability to taxpayers, as the text of the proposal does not provide a plan for specifically how the additional funds will improve public education. Education is a local issue, and schools are accountable to their communities. Schools and communities can seek local options and private resources. Higher education is an individual choice and subsequently should not be further subsidized by the state. Finally, opponents say that Proposition 103 is an irresponsible approach to increasing education funding – if the economy fails to recover during the five-year period of the tax increase, larger cuts to other programs may be necessary to meet the minimum education funding levels set in the measure.
If recent history is any guide, Proposition 103 will face an uphill battle at the ballot box. Other initiatives that would have raised revenue in Colorado for a variety of causes have recently been voted down, including Amendments 51, 52, 58, and 59 in 2008. Tax increase supporters, however, are counting on a shift in the public’s priorities in 2011. In 2010, Oregon voters upheld legislatively approved individual and corporate tax increases at the polls, while Arizona voters approved a temporary sales tax increase that the legislature placed on the ballot. However, there are signs that the pro-tax side is also struggling. In Georgia, a referendum set for the state ballot in 2012 to increase taxes for transportation funding is trailing in the polls, despite support of the measure by the business community. For more information on Proposition 103, see the Legislative Council 2011 Blue Book analysis. The supporters’ website can be found at http://voteyeson103.com/, and the opponents’ website can be found at http://www.savecoloradojobs.org/index.html.