Year: 2015

How Federalism Shapes the People’s Courts

by Jessica Wigent

In a recent webcast presented by the Council of State Governments, Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, and Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General, discussed federalism, how it guides our complex judicial system, and how courts’ decisions impact state governments. It’s a useful review as we come to the close of 2015 and look ahead to court cases in the coming year.

Federalism, from the Latin root foedus, or “formal agreement or covenant,” is a system of government where authority is allocated between national and state governments— and for our purposes here, state and federal courts.

Alexander Hamilton, “the ten dollar founding father without a father,” as he is described in the celebrated Broadway play named for him, summed up the usefulness of our system, calling it “a double security to the people,” because if our rights “are invaded by either [our state or federal government], [we] can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.”

So how does this intricate balance of power work?

The federal courts:

Answer constitutional questions (Was a fundamental liberty at stake in the gay marriage debate? The Supreme Court said yes in Obergefell v. Hodges)
Handle interstate tussles (The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to hear Oklahoma’s and Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado over recreational marijuana)
Step in when Congress passes a law some say is murky (What did Congress really mean to say about subsidies and federal and state health exchanges in the Affordable Care Act? The Supreme Court answered this question in King v. Burwell)
Hear cases where the United States is suing or being sued (Remember when then-President Richard Nixon tried to tell the New York Times and the Washington Post they couldn’t publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers? In New York Times Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment protected the paper’s right to publish the documents detailing the country’s involvement in Vietnam)

And the state courts? Well, they decide (almost all of) the rest—from traffic tickets to whether awarding state-funded tuition scholarships to students who attend sectarian schools violates the Colorado Constitution. (Whether the latter violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is an issue the federal courts would have to decide.)

The structures of the federal and state courts are fairly similar:

Level	Colorado State Level Courts	Federal Level
Lower courts (hold trials, make findings of fact and law)	County and district courts, scattered throughout 22 judicial districts across the state, and specialized courts (like our seven water courts)	U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
Intermediate courts (hear appeals from the lower courts)	Colorado Court of Appeals	10th Circuit Court of Appeals
The high court (hears appeals from the intermediate courts, sometimes)	Colorado Supreme Court	U.S. Supreme Court

So we’ve got the levels down; we know which cases end up in which court. Now, how do cases get decided?

Again, both state and federal courts work similarly. As Soronen explained, the courts use a hierarchy of laws when making their decisions. First, they look to the (federal and/or state) constitution, then to statutes passed by the Congress/legislature, then to rules and regulations created by administrative agencies (like the I.R.S. or the Colorado Department of Education), and, finally, they look to case law and common law.

The law develops through the expansion of case law—as courts answer more and more questions and make rulings on certain issues, they have more and more references to turn to and follow when considering their decisions. This is called applying precedent—or stare decisis, meaning Let it Stand!—and it is (usually) the guiding principle of our judicial system, aiding both we the people and the courts in many ways:

It’s efficient
It’s fair
It gives the system predictability
It’s a check on arbitrary behavior

So when does precedent apply? Lest you think we forgot the title of this post (we are supposed to be talking about federalism after all) the precedent of a state court applies just to that state’s courts. If the Colorado Supreme Court says it tastes like chicken, so do the Colorado Court of Appeals and the county and district courts. But whatever it tastes like in California or New Jersey or Texas doesn’t affect what it tastes like in Colorado. In the federal system, the same hierarchy applies within the districts and circuits, except that, when the U.S. Supreme Court says it tastes like chicken, every court in our fair land—state and federal— says it does too.

Soronen explained that state courts are not bound by interpretations of federal law made by the federal district courts or federal courts of appeals, even in the same state! And this means? Judges in state courts throughout Colorado aren’t bound by rulings made by a judge from the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This can get ~~confusing~~ fun (States interpret state and federal law! Federal courts can’t tell state courts what to do!) and is a product of the philosophical compromise of our Founding Fathers that led to our federalist system of government.

We Coloradans would do well to understand how federalism and the courts work, so we can better understand why TABOR has been challenged in both state and federal courts, why our friendly state neighbors to the east and southeast are suing us over marijuana in federal and not state court, and why, at least for now, our school voucher cases have only been heard in state court.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Delaware Delegate John Dickinson famously said: “Let our government be like that of the solar system. Let the general government be like the sun and the states the planets, repelled yet attracted, and the whole moving regularly and harmoniously in several orbits.” What we ended up with is more complicated than what he envisioned, but it’s a system, and it’s ours.

December 31, 2015

A Holiday Message

HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE OLLS!

December 24, 2015
Court Continues Consideration of S.B.191 Provisions for Unpaid Leave
by Julie Pelegrin

Before 2010, a teacher who was employed by a Colorado school district for three consecutive years automatically earned the status of nonprobationary teacher, which means the teacher could be dismissed only for certain reasons specified in statute and only after receiving notice and a hearing. With changes made to the law in 2010 by Senate Bill 10-191 (S.B. 191), a nonprobationary teacher can now be placed on indefinite unpaid leave for certain specified reasons – but the statute doesn’t require notice and a hearing. How is indefinite unpaid leave different from being dismissed? The Colorado Court of Appeals recently considered that question.

S.B. 191, which mainly focuses on evaluations for teachers and principals, also includes language about teacher employment. Specifically, the act amends §22-63-202, C.R.S., to say that a teacher cannot be placed at a school unless the school principal agrees to the placement after getting input from at least two of the school’s teachers. This requirement is commonly known as the “mutual consent” provision.

S.B.191 also allows a school district to remove a nonprobationary teacher from the classroom for certain specified reasons. The nonprobationary teacher can apply for a vacant position at a different school, but the mutual consent provision applies. If the nonprobationary teacher cannot secure a mutual consent placement within the longer of 12 months or two hiring cycles, the teacher goes on indefinite unpaid leave. After that, if the teacher secures a mutual consent placement, the school district will resume the teacher’s salary and benefits at the level they would have been if the teacher had not been on unpaid leave.

In January of 2014, the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) and five nonprobationary teachers employed by Denver Public Schools (DPS) filed a lawsuit against DPS and the State Board of Education claiming that placing a nonprobationary teacher on unpaid leave as allowed in S.B.191 is unconstitutional. All but one of the nonprobationary teachers were removed from their schools under the S.B.191 provisions. Three of the five teachers were placed on indefinite unpaid leave after being unable to secure mutual consent placements.

The suit makes two claims:
1. The teacher employment statute creates a private contract between the teachers and the school district; the unpaid leave provisions unconstitutionally interfere with that contract; and
2. The teacher employment statute creates a property interest in continued employment for nonprobationary teachers. Placing a nonprobationary teacher on indefinite unpaid leave is essentially the same as dismissing the teacher. So, the provisions that allow the school district to place the teacher on indefinite unpaid leave without giving the teacher due process – notice and a hearing – take away the teacher’s property interest in continued employment in violation of the due process clause of the constitution.
Last March, the state Attorney General and the lawyers for DPS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the teachers and the DCTA did not state any claims for which the court could grant relief. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss in June.

The teachers and the DCTA appealed the trial court’s dismissal order to the Colorado Court of Appeals. And in November, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

On the first claim, the trial court recognized that there is a presumption that a statute does not create private contract rights; a statute creates policy that the General Assembly can later change. A person can overcome that presumption by showing that, in passing a statute, the General Assembly actually intended to create private contract rights. But the trial court did not think the teachers and the DCTA had provided any evidence that the General Assembly intended to do that when it passed the teacher employment statutes.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court. The Court of Appeals looked not just at the current teacher employment law, but at the previous law as well. The Court of Appeals opined that the current teacher employment law is not significantly different from the previous law: The previous law granted a teacher “tenure” after three years of continuous employment and the current law grants a teacher “nonprobationary status” after three years of continuous employment. In the opinion of the Court, “tenure” and “nonprobationary status” are synonymous because they both guarantee dismissal only for cause and only after notice and a hearing.

There is Colorado case law that holds that the previous teacher employment law created private contract rights. Based on this, the Court of Appeals found that the teachers and DCTA have overcome the presumption against creating contracts, and the current teacher employment statute does create a contract between teachers and the school district. Now the trial court must decide whether the S.B.191 provisions substantially impair the contractual relationship and whether the impairment is justified because it is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.

The Court of Appeals also disagreed with the trial court on the second claim: The S.B.191 provisions that allow a school district to place a nonprobationary teacher on indefinite unpaid leave do violate constitutional due process requirements. The trial court had said that being on indefinite unpaid leave is not the same as being fired; the S.B.191 provisions simply change the rights that accompany employment, they don’t take the right to continued employment away.

The Court of Appeals agreed that, since a person can come back from indefinite unpaid leave at the same salary level, being on indefinite unpaid leave is not the same as being fired. So the teachers who were placed on indefinite unpaid leave were not deprived of the property right of continued employment. But, the Court found that when a teacher is placed on unpaid leave, the teacher’s expectation of continued employment is “disappointed” because the teacher is not working or getting paid. A Colorado Supreme Court case interpreting the previous teacher employment law held that a teacher who is placed on unpaid leave has a right to a hearing to decide whether the teacher was truly placed on unpaid leave for a reason authorized in the statute and whether the placement was made in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion. Based on this case, placing the teachers on unpaid leave without a hearing, as allowed by the S.B.191 provisions, does deprive teachers of their constitutional due process rights.

On December 17, 2015, the Attorney General’s office and the attorneys for DPS filed a petition for certiorari, requesting the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision.
December 18, 2015
How Did We Get Here? Tips for Researching Legislative History
by Julie Pelegrin

As legislators, lobbyists, and stakeholders turn their attention to preparing bills for the 2016 legislative session, many may wonder, “Is this really a new idea, or has someone tried this before?” Or maybe someone’s looking to strengthen an existing statute and wondering, “When did they first pass this statute, and has it always had these problems?” The answers to these questions are easily found with just a bit of research. The key is knowing where to look.

Bill Title Histories

Every bill introduced in every regular and special legislative session since 1997 is available on the General Assembly’s website under “Session Information – Prior Sessions.” The bills are organized by year, and the database of each year’s bills is searchable . You can also search for a keyword or phrase by clicking “Search” near the top of the page.

A legislator may also ask a drafter to search the OLLS database of bill and resolution titles, which goes back to 1999. This search identifies bills and resolutions that included a particular term or phrase in their titles.

Legislative History

Just knowing whether a bill has been introduced to address your topic is not enough. It’s also helpful to know how the bill was amended, who testified for or against it, what issues were debated, and whether the bill passed. This information is also available, but it takes a bit of digging.

Once you find a bill using your search term, you can access:
- All versions of the bill;
- The history of the bill, which lists the committees the bill was assigned to, each action taken on the bill, and the date of each action;
- All versions of the fiscal note written for the bill;
- All of the committee reports on the bill, including the vote tallies for each report; and
- The third reading vote tallies for the bill. When you click on the third reading vote link, it takes you to the House or Senate Journal page for the day on which the House or the Senate voted on the bill on third reading. You may need to scroll through the page to find the bill you’re looking for.
To find a summary of a committee hearing on a bill, click “Committees” at the top of the page. Next, click “Summaries by Bill,” then select your bill, and you will see the bill summaries for each committee of reference that heard the bill. Click “Bill Summary,” and you will see a short summary of the bill discussion, any testimony provided on the bill, the amendments that were offered, the vote tally on each amendment, and the final vote tally.

Each bill summary also shows the date of the committee hearing and the times at which the bill sponsor spoke, witnesses testified, and the committee took action on the bill. This is important information if you want to listen to the testimony or debate. The state has recordings of committee hearings going back to 1973. To get a recording of committee testimony and debate, contact the Legislative Council Staff at 303.866.3521. To listen to a committee hearing before 2002, you must contact state archives.

You may also be able to watch or listen to the floor debate on a bill. Use the bill history to identify the date on which a bill was considered on second or third reading. Then, on the General Assembly homepage, click “Audio and Video Broadcasts” under “Session Information.” Then click the Colorado Channel home page link, click the button for archived legislative sessions, and follow the directions. Unfortunately, the video and audio recordings of floor sessions only go back to the 2010 session.

Source Notes

If you want to know when a statute was originally enacted and how it’s been changed since then, you must check the statute’s source note.

Every section of the Colorado Revised Statutes has a source note immediately following the text that indicates the year the section was added, any year in which it was changed, which provision of the section was changed, where in the Session Laws to find the bill that made the change, and the effective date of the change. For more of the specifics on interpreting source notes, see page vi at the beginning of each printed volume of the Colorado Revised Statutes or check out this memo on the OLLS home page. There’s also a very handy chart for decoding source notes.

If the source note tells you that your section has been amended, use the reference to the Session Laws to look up the bill that amended the section. For example, if the source note says “L.2015: (1)(c) amended, ch. 12, p. 27, §1, effective March 31,” open the 2015 Session Laws of the State of Colorado to page 27 and you’ll find the bill that amended the section. Or open the 2015 Session Laws on-line through the General Assembly website and click on chapter 12. Since 2009, the legislative editors in the OLLS have also included in each source note the number of the bill that adds, amends, or repeals a statute. If you’re checking the statutes on-line, the bill number is hyper-linked to the bill itself.
December 10, 2015
CCUSL Recommends Three Uniform Acts for Introduction in 2016
by Patti Dahlberg and Thomas Morris

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth article in our series on the Uniform Laws Commission. The preceding articles were posted on Nov. 5, Sept. 17, and Aug. 6.

The Uniform Laws Commission (ULC) consists of commissioners appointed by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The ULC meets each year to consider and promote laws that could become more uniform. Colorado’s delegation to the ULC, the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws, may recommend ULC acts for introduction during a legislative session through one or more bills that are exempt from the bill limits imposed on legislators.

The CCUSL meets each year at the annual summer ULC conference to adopt a preliminary agenda for consideration by the Colorado General Assembly at its next legislative session. In addition, the CCUSL typically hosts one or more open meetings at the State Capitol to discuss proposed legislation and to finalize its legislative agenda. CCUSL meetings are posted on the CCUSL website and are open to the public.

At its November 30 meeting, the CCUSL voted to move the following three bills forward as part of its 2016 legislative agenda:
- Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets – This act ensures that holders of an electronic account (such as an e-mail or Facebook account) retain control of their digital assets and can plan for property disposition after their death. A digital asset is an electronic record in which a person has a right or an interest. Unless the account holder instructs otherwise, legally appointed fiduciaries will have the same access to digital assets that they have always had to tangible assets and the same duty to comply with the account holder’s instructions.
- Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act – The Colorado General Assembly adopted the 2000 ULC Uniform Athlete Agents Act in 2008, and the act has been enacted in 42 other states. The revised act makes numerous changes, including expanding the definition of “athlete agent,” adding new requirements to the signing of an agency contract, and expanding notification requirements.
- Uniform Recognition and Enforcement of Canadian Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act – This act provides for the enforcement of domestic violence protection orders issued by Canadian courts. Canada granted recognition to protection orders of the United States in the Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act.
The CCUSL will decide at its next meeting whether to introduce the following bills:
- Uniform Voidable Transactions Act Amendments (2014) – This act strengthens creditor protection by providing remedies for certain transactions by a debtor that are unfair to the debtor’s creditors. The 2014 amendments to the UVTA address a small number of narrowly defined issues and are not a comprehensive revision of the act.
- Uniform Recognition of Substitute Decision-Making Documents Act – This act promotes portability of substitute decision-making documents created outside of the jurisdiction where the substitute decision is needed. Commonly used substitute decision-making documents include powers of attorney and proxy delegations for personal decision making.
- Revised Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act – The original Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act was last amended in 1974. This updated version includes new articles covering the disposition of tenant property, lease termination in case of domestic violence or sexual assault, and security deposits. It also allows for notice by e-mail and incorporates some common law decisions that interpreted provisions of the 1974 act.
- Uniform Trust Decanting Act – Decanting refers to the distribution of assets from one trust into a second trust. It can be useful in changing the outdated terms of an otherwise irrevocable trust, but it can also be abused. This act limits decanting when it would defeat a charitable or tax-related purpose and includes both a stricter set of rules that apply when discretion over distributions is to be limited and a more liberal set of rules that apply when that discretion has been expanded.
The CCUSL’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. at the State Capitol.

Information about uniform acts, drafting projects, committees, meetings, and legislation information is available on the ULC website.

For information on Colorado’s ULC connection, visit the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws (CCUSL) website.

Subscribe to the CCUSL mailing list to receive e-mail notifications about CCUSL meetings and upcoming meeting agendas.
December 3, 2015
A Thanksgiving Message

Happy Thanksgiving from the OLLS!

November 26, 2015
Summary of 2015 Interim Study Committee Recommendations – Part II
This week’s article is the second in a series that summarizes the bills recommended by each of the 11 interim study committees that met this year. The Legislative Council met Tuesday, November 10, 2015, and reviewed and approved all of the recommended bills, resolutions, and memorials except one that did not require Council approval.

Interim Committee to Study Vocational Rehabilitative Services for the Blind

The Interim Committee to Study Vocational Rehabilitative Services for the Blind met six times during the 2015 interim to discuss issues related to vocational rehabilitation services for the blind. Throughout its meetings, the committee heard from various stakeholder groups, including the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado, the National Rehabilitation Association, the Colorado Center for the Blind, and A3 Colorado, as well as state agencies that administer vocational rehabilitation programs for persons who are blind. Experts in adaptive technology for the blind, employment specialists, and blind entrepreneurs also testified before the committee. Additionally, the committee received updates from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) regarding the transfer of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) from the Department of Human Services to the CDLE pursuant to Senate Bill 15-239 and from the State Auditor’s Office regarding the audit of the DVR and progress made to date to address issues raised in the audit.

At its last meeting, the committee considered three draft bills and voted to advance two bills for consideration by the Legislative Council.

Bill A: Concerning modifications to the business enterprise program to be administered by the department of labor and employment under its authority to administer vocational rehabilitation programs. This bill expands the scope of the Business Enterprise Program, which is a program within the DVR that licenses blind vendors to operate food vending facilities on state property. The bill removes the exemption from the program for state property owned, leased, or occupied by institutions of higher education or the State Fair Authority, thereby extending the priority for blind vendors to operate vending facilities on those properties. Additionally, the bill permits the program to expand the types of businesses for which blind vendors could be licensed to operate on state properties so that blind vendors would not be limited to operating only cafeterias, cafes, and other food-related businesses. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representative Primavera and Senator Lundberg.

Bill B: Concerning the creation of an income tax credit to incentivize the employment of persons with disabilities. This bill creates two income tax credits for taxpayers who hire a person who has a developmental disability or is blind or visually impaired and who has been receiving services from and was referred for employment by the DVR. One of the tax credits allows an employer a credit equal to a percentage of the employee’s wages during the first continuous year of employment. The second tax credit authorizes an offset against a portion of the costs the employer incurs during the first three years of employment to maintain, repair, or upgrade assistive hardware or software technology necessary to allow the qualified employee to perform the job. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representative Windholz and Senator Aguilar.

All of the bills that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Interim Committee to Study Vocational Rehabilitative Services for the Blind, contact Christy Chase.

Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons With Mental Illness in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems

The Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons With Mental Illness in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems (legislative oversight committee) is a statutorily created committee that meets during the legislative session and the interim. The legislative oversight committee met three times during 2015, including during the interim. The legislative oversight committee is unique in that is has an associated advisory task force, also created in statute.

The legislative oversight committee is responsible for overseeing the advisory task force and recommending legislative changes. The advisory task force is directed to examine the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of persons with mental illness who are involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, including the examination of liability, safety, and cost as they relate to these issues. The advisory task force met monthly throughout the year and reported its findings to the legislative oversight committee at those meetings.

Specifically, the advisory task force updated the legislative oversight committee on the following topics:
- Housing for a person with a mental illness after his or her release from the criminal or juvenile justice system;
- Medication consistency, delivery, and availability;
- Enhanced data collection issues related to persons with mental illness in the criminal or juvenile justice system;
- Recidivism and the correlation with mental illnesses; and
- Juvenile competency and restoration services.
The legislative oversight committee requested four bills for drafting. One bill was withdrawn before consideration. Of the remaining three bills, the legislative oversight committee recommended only one to the Legislative Council.

Bill A: Concerning including a mental health professional in the memorandum of understanding relating to a local-level collaborative management process for children and families. This bill requires that a mental health professional be included in the memorandum of understanding created by a group seeking to create a collaborative management system of local-level interagency oversight that coordinates and manages the provision of services to children and families. The prime sponsors of the bill are Senators Newell and Martinez Humenik and Representative Lee.

All of the bills that the legislative oversight committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons With Mental Illness in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems, contact Jane Ritter.

The Profiling – Initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement Interim Committee

The Profiling – Initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement Interim Committee met five times during the 2015 interim. The committee focused its attention on the data collection that currently occurs in the state and how data collection works in other states. The committee heard from various law enforcement agencies in the state, the Colorado State Patrol, and the Department of Revenue regarding current practices related to data collection for police stops and contacts. The National Conference of State Legislatures provided a report on racial profiling laws and data collection requirements in other states. Dr. Lonnie Schaible, Assistant Professor with the University of Colorado Denver, provided an overview of racial profiling research and methodological concerns. Mr. Jeffrey Zuback, Research Chief for Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention, testified concerning Maryland’s data collection processes. The Greenwood Village police department provided an overview of its e-ticketing system.

The committee requested three bills for drafting, only one of which was recommended to the Legislative Council for approval.

Bill A (Bill 2): Concerning providing the opportunity to collect identifying information from applicants for state-issued cards. This bill requires that an application for a driver’s license or state identification card include the opportunity for the applicant to self-identify his or her race or ethnicity. The race or ethnicity information will not be printed on the driver’s license or identification card but will be included in the information on the stored information magnetic strip on the card. A law enforcement officer will be able to access the information when he or she swipes or scans the driver’s license or identification card. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representative Salazar and Senators Ulibarri and Roberts.

All of the bills that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Profiling – Initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement Interim Committee, contact Michael Dohr.

Transportation Legislation Review Committee

During the 2015 legislative interim, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC):
- Met at the State Capitol in Denver four times;
- Went on site visits in the Denver metro area to the large Interstate-70 East highway improvement project and Lockheed Martin’s Autonomous Systems facility in Littleton;
- Toured Southwest Colorado, conducting field hearings in Alamosa, Durango, and Montrose; and
- Recommended five bills for introduction during the 2016 legislative session.
At its meetings, the TLRC heard presentations on a variety of subjects, including:
- An overview by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) of transportation infrastructure funding that noted, among other things, that in inflation-adjusted dollars, the state spent $125.70 per Coloradan on transportation infrastructure in 1991 but only $68.94 in 2015;
- Presentations on transportation infrastructure planning, contracting and intergovernmental agreements, Interstate 70 mountain corridor winter traction and congestion issues, laws on impeding traffic, traffic safety data gathering, common carrier regulation, and the definition of “motor vehicle;” and
- A presentation on nationwide transportation funding from the National Conference of State Legislatures and activity updates from regional transportation authorities and public highway authorities.
The TLRC considered seven draft bills (one was withdrawn during the drafting process) and ultimately voted to recommend five bills to the Legislative Council.

Bill A: Concerning a requirement that noncommercial motor vehicles be appropriately equipped when driving on the interstate 70 mountain corridor during winter storm conditions. This bill requires a motor vehicle that is driven in the Interstate 70 mountain corridor between Dotsero and Morrison when icy or snow-packed conditions are present to use appropriate traction equipment and imposes fines for violations. Under House Bill 15-1173, this bill does not require approval by the Legislative Council for introduction during the 2016 session. The prime sponsors of this bill are Representatives Mitsch Bush and Rankin and Senators Todd and Donovan.

Bill B: Concerning a requirement that the statewide transportation advisory committee provide advice and comments regarding transportation-related matters to both the department of transportation and the transportation commission rather than to the department only. This bill requires the State Transportation Advisory Committee to provide advice not only to CDOT, but also to the Transportation Commission. The prime sponsors of this bill are Representatives Carver and Mitsch Bush and Senator Todd.

Bill C: Concerning a requirement that the transportation legislation review committee study the transportation commission districts of the state to determine whether they should be modified. This bill requires the TLRC to study the current statutorily defined Transportation Commission districts during the 2016 legislative interim and determine whether the number and boundaries of the districts should be changed. The prime sponsor of this bill is Representative Carver.

Bill D: Concerning authorization to drive a kei vehicle on public roadways if the kei vehicle is registered with the state. This bill allows the Department of Revenue to title, register, and issue a rear license plate for a kei vehicle for operation on a road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph or less. The prime sponsors of this bill are Representative J. Becker and Senator Cooke.

Bill E: Concerning a requirement that the holder of an abandoned motor vehicle use the records of a national title search to notify persons with an interest in the motor vehicle that the vehicle has been towed and is subject to sale. This bill broadens the category of records that the Department of Revenue must include in a records search to identify the owner and any lienholder of an abandoned motor vehicle so that the tow operator can notify the appropriate persons that the vehicle has been towed and will be sold unless it is claimed. The prime sponsors of this bill are Representative Tyler and Senators Baumgardner and Todd.

All of the bills that the TLRC considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Transportation Legislation Review Committee, contact Jason Gelender.

Wildfire Matters Review Committee

2015 has been, thankfully, a relatively quiet year for wildfires in Colorado. But the Wildfire Matters Review Committee (WMRC) still had plenty of work to do, convening four times during the legislative interim to receive updates, debate policy, and talk with stakeholders regarding myriad issues relating to wildfire prevention, risk mitigation, and response.

The WMRC requested six bill drafts, one resolution, and one memorial. Ultimately, the committee recommended four bills, the resolution, and the memorial to the Legislative Council.

Bill A: Concerning changing the wildfire mitigation income tax deduction to the wildfire mitigation income tax credit. This bill eliminates the wildfire mitigation income tax deduction and creates a wildfire mitigation state income tax credit, which will be available for tax years 2017 through 2019. The amount of the credit is equal to 25% of the costs a landowner incurs performing wildfire mitigation on his or her property located in the wildland-urban interface. The amount of the credit per tax year cannot exceed $2,500. Any amount above the limit can be carried forward for five years, but any remaining credit after five years is nonrefundable. The prime sponsor of this bill is Representative K. Becker.

Bill B: Concerning increased authority to use broadcast burning as a tool to promote watershed restoration. This bill adds broadcast burning to the types of projects and methods for which the Colorado State Forest Service may award grants from the Healthy Forests and Vibrant Communities Cash Fund and the Forest Restoration Program Cash Fund. The prime sponsors of this bill are Representative K. Becker and Senators Jones and Roberts.

Bill C: Concerning increased authority to use broadcast burning as an optional tool to reduce wildfire risk, and, in connection therewith, providing additional funding for wildfire risk reduction efforts. This bill adds broadcast burning to the types of projects and methods for which the Department of Natural Resources may award grants from the Wildfire Risk Reduction Fund. The bill also authorizes the transfer of a total of $3 million into the cash fund: $1.5 million from the General Fund and $1.5 million from the Severance Tax Operational Fund. The prime sponsors of the bill are Senators Roberts and Jones and Representative K. Becker.

Bill D: Concerning auxiliary emergency communications in the state, and, in connection therewith, establishing the auxiliary emergency communications unit in the office of emergency management in the department of public safety. This bill creates the Auxiliary Emergency Communications Unit (unit) in the Office of Emergency Management in the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The unit has the power to establish programs for training and credentialing auxiliary emergency or disaster communicators across the state; assume all the duties and responsibilities of the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES); and ensure that auxiliary emergency communicators are authorized volunteers entitled to the appropriate protections and benefits of emergency volunteers when assisting local governments with the maintenance or demolition of communication facilities. With this authority, the DPS may develop and issue photo identification cards to auxiliary communicators, conduct criminal background checks, and reimburse emergency communicators for necessary travel and other expenses incurred in performing their duties. Finally, the bill increases from 23 to 24 the number of members serving on the Public Safety Communications Subcommittee of the Homeland Security and All-Hazards Senior Advisory Committee in the DPS. The additional member is the section emergency coordinator for the Amateur Radio Emergency Service of the Colorado section of the Amateur Radio Relay League. The prime sponsor of the bill is Representative Singer.

Resolution A: Concerning the recognition of Colorado firefighters killed in the line of duty. This resolution honors and recognizes firefighters that have been killed in the line of duty. The prime sponsors of the resolution are Senators Baumgardner and Merrifield and Representatives Hamner and Thurlow.

Memorial B: Concerning the need for Congress to fund catastrophic wildfire response costs outside of federal forest management agencies’ normal budgets. This memorial requests that Congress fund the costs for catastrophic wildfire response outside the normal budgets for federal forest management agencies. In an unusual procedural move, this measure is identical to legislation (Memorial B) approved and recommended by the 2015 interim Water Resources Review Committee. This reflects the fact that the subject matter significantly affects water- and wildfire-related issues, and expresses the will that the memorial be jointly carried by both interim committees. The prime sponsors of this memorial are Senators Jones and Roberts and Representatives Coram and Vigil.

All of the legislation that the WMRC considered is available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Wildfire Matters Review Committee, contact Kate Meyer.
November 19, 2015
Summary of 2015 Interim Study Committee Recommendations – Part I
The Legislative Council met Tuesday, November 10, 2015, to review all of the bills recommended to them by the legislative study committees that met during the 2015 interim. With the exception of one Transportation Legislation Review Committee bill that did not require Legislative Council approval, the Legislative Council approved all of the bills, resolutions, and memorials presented by the 2015 interim committees.

This week’s article summarizes the recommendations from six of the 11 interim study committees that met this year. Next week, LegiSource will post summaries of the remaining five committees.

The Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee

The Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee met five times over the 2015 interim and is scheduled to have one more meeting in December. The committee received briefings from the exchange board and staff at most of the meetings and, per its statutory charge, covered a range of topics pertaining to the operations and finances of the exchange.

At the last meeting, the committee considered four bills and voted to move one bill forward for consideration by Legislative Council as follows:

Bill A: Concerning the use of qualified insurance brokers to enroll eligible participants in health benefit plans through the Colorado health benefit exchange. This bill requires the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange to establish a system to refer consumers to qualified insurance brokers to enroll consumers in health benefit plans. The established system must include the installation of a call center and the necessary software to make referrals. The prime sponsors of the bill are Senator Martinez Humenik and Representative Sias.

All of the bills that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee, contact Kristin Forrestal.

Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission

The Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission created in section 26-6.5-203, C.R.S., met six times from June through October. They heard testimony and discussed a wide range of subjects related to early childhood care and education, including operations of the Colorado child care assistance program, child care quality initiatives, early childhood mental health and school discipline, continuity from preschool and kindergarten, child welfare, access to child care, home visitation programs, and child care licensing. The commission also collaborated with the early childhood leadership commission regarding early childhood issues.

The commission requested five bills. Of those five, the commission recommended three to the Legislative Council as follows:

Bill A: Concerning the start of the child tax credit. In 2013, the General Assembly created a state income tax credit that low- and middle-income taxpayers could claim for each child under six years old. The amount of the credit was based on a related federal child tax credit and a taxpayer’s income. But the credit is only allowed after the United States congress enacts a version of the “Marketplace Fairness Act,” which could lead to increased sales tax collections. This bill repeals the contingent start of the tax credit and instead allows the credit to be claimed for all years beginning with the 2016 tax year. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representative Singer and Senators Merrifield and Kefalas (joint prime sponsors).

Bill B: Concerning removing certain limitations on the pilot program to mitigate cliff effect for low-income families who are working and receiving child care assistance. The department of human services is operating a pilot program to look at ways to mitigate the “cliff effect” that low-income families who are working and receiving child care assistance often experience. The pilot program has been limited to 10 counties. This bill removes the limit and allows the executive director of the department to select additional counties to participate in the pilot, subject to available appropriations. The prime sponsors of the bill are Senator Martinez Humenik and Representative Pettersen.

Bill C: Concerning a task force to address the child care needs of low-income parents of young children as the parents seek to advance their education. This bill creates a task force to address the child care needs of low-income parents of young children as the parents seek to advance their education. The task force consists of the leaders of several departments; parents and representatives of child advocacy organizations; and employees of county departments of human services. The task force has several duties, including identifying and reducing, if possible, barriers to obtaining child care from the range of available governmental and private child care sources, determining whether existing child care resources are adequate, reviewing and streamlining the processes for providing child care for parents, and communicating the availability of child care from public and private sources to parents who are seeking education or training. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representative Pettersen and Senator Merrifield.

All of the bills that the commission considered are available for review on the commission’s website. For questions concerning the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission, contact Julie Pelegrin.

Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission

The Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission met once during the 2015 interim for an annual briefing from the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) and to consider three bills recommended by the FPPA Board of Directors (Board) for introduction during the 2016 legislative session. Based on the Board’s recommendations, the commission approved the following two bills:

Bill A: Concerning optional affiliation with the fire and police pension association by a county sheriff department that does not participate in social security. Legislation passed in 2003 allows county sheriff departments that participate in social security to affiliate with the FPPA. The bill allows sheriff departments that do not participate in social security to participate in the FPPA. The prime sponsors of the bill are Representatives Melton and Salazar (joint prime sponsors) and Senator Jones.

Bill B: Concerning modifications to the statewide death and disability plan administered by the fire and police pension association. A member of FPPA who has a temporary disability and returns to work or retires can receive contributions from the statewide death and disability plan to the member’s normal retirement plan for his or her time on temporary disability. This allows the member to receive a full retirement benefit. Current law requires a transfer from the statewide death and disability plan to the member’s normal retirement plan at the rate of 16% of the member’s monthly base salary for the time that the member received temporary disability benefits, even if the contribution rate for the member’s normal retirement plan was less than 16%. The bill changes the contribution rate to an amount equal to the employer and employee contribution rate being made to the member’s normal retirement plan at the time of the disability, not to exceed 16% of the member’s monthly base salary.

Currently, FPPA employers are required to ask prospective employees to complete a statewide standard health history form, and the prospective employees are required to complete the form before they may begin employment. The bill changes this requirement and now requires that a newly hired FPPA member complete and submit the form to the FPPA within 30 days of the newly hired member’s first day of employment. The prime sponsor of the bill is Representative Van Winkle.

All of the bills that the commission considered are available for review on the commission’s website. For questions concerning the FPPA, contact Nicole Myers.

Off-highway Vehicle Interim Committee

After several years of unsuccessful legislation to address the registration of off-highway vehicles bill, the Executive Committee created the Off-highway Vehicle Interim Committee to work on the issues. The committee met several times to hear from off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, dealers, counties, hunters and environmentalists plus representatives of state patrol, municipalities, insurers, hospitals, disabled veterans, and many others. After all the testimony, the committee considered two bills and recommended one of them to the Legislative Council.

Bill A: Concerning the registration of off-highway vehicles with the division of parks and wildlife. The bill makes several major changes to current law: Local authorities may require driver’s licenses and insurance, and these requirements are exempted from the rule that local ordinances must be consistent with state-promulgated rules; local authorities may require a person to register with the county clerk before a person may operate an off-highway vehicle on the road; and local authorities may enter into cooperative agreements with federal land management agencies. The bill creates a voluntary registration program. But the voluntary registration program does not apply to trails unless a local government classifies a trail as a road.

The bill also imposes several requirements and restrictions on off-highway vehicles and the persons who drive them. These include: Requiring a driver’s license to drive on a road, unless waived by a local authority; issuing license plates for off-highway vehicles; requiring drivers to obey the rules of the road; prohibiting off-highway vehicles on limited-access highways and roads with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour or more; requiring eye protection; requiring helmets for minor drivers and passengers; requiring brakes and, if driven at night, headlamps and tail lamps; imposing a speed limit of 40 miles per hour; and including off-highway vehicles in the careless driving and reckless driving statutes. The prime sponsors are Representative Brown and Senator Donovan.

The bills that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the off-highway vehicles interim committee, contact Jery Payne.

The School Safety and Youth in Crisis Interim Committee

The School Safety and Youth in Crisis Committee is created in section 22-15-101 , C.R.S., and charged with the following duties:
- Study issues relating to school safety and the prevention of threats to the safety of students, teachers, administrators, employees, and volunteers who are present on the grounds of each public and private school in the state;
- Study and evaluate programs and methods for identifying and monitoring students in crisis;
- Develop standardized criteria for school personnel to use in assessing the potential threat posed by one or more students; and
- Study and evaluate the implementation of S.B.15-213 (the “Claire Davis School Safety Act”).
The committee met five times during the interim and heard testimony from many diverse stakeholders, including teachers, students, parents, school districts, charter schools, law enforcement officers, mental health professionals, and social workers. On October 27, the committee considered seven bill drafts. At the onset of the discussion, various bill sponsors withdrew all but two of the requested bills. The committee then discussed the remaining two bill drafts, but both of the drafts failed to pass a majority vote of the legislative committee members. As a result, the committee is not advancing any legislation in the 2016 session.

All of the bills that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the School Safety and Youth in Crisis Committee, contact Richard Sweetman.

Water Resources Review Committee

The Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) had a busy interim this year. With 15 hearings throughout Colorado, the WRRC spent a lot of time together. The chair of the committee, Senator Ellen Roberts, reflected on more than one occasion that the WRRC was “like a family” this interim. Nine of the WRRC’s hearings were held pursuant to Senate Bill 14-115, which requires the WRRC to hold hearings in each of the nine water basins in the state to obtain public feedback on the draft Colorado Water Plan.

As with all families, the WRRC did not always agree. At its final hearing on October 29, 2015, the WRRC considered five bills and three resolutions. Requiring a two-thirds majority vote to recommend legislation for the Legislative Council’s consideration, four of the five bills failed, and the final bill was withdrawn from consideration. All three of the resolutions passed, however, and were recommended to the Legislative Council. The resolutions are summarized below:

Resolution 2: Concerning Timely Access to Federal Lands for Dam Restoration. The resolution urges the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to respond promptly to requests for permission to access a dam located on federal land when the owner or operator of the dam requests access to the dam for the purpose of maintenance, repairs, or restoration. The prime sponsors are Representatives Coram and Mitsch Bush and Senator Baumgardner.

Memorial 3: Concerning the need for Congress to fund catastrophic wildfire response costs outside of federal forest management agencies’ normal budgets. The resolution encourages Congress to enact laws to protect forest land management agencies’ ability to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires and manage lands within their jurisdiction by funding catastrophic wildfire response in the same manner that natural disasters are funded. The prime sponsors are Senators Jones and Roberts and Representatives Coram and Vigil.

Memorial 6: Concerning protection from liability for voluntary reclamation of abandoned hard rock mines. The resolution urges Congress to pass legislation establishing a Good Samaritan exemption from liability under the “Clean Water Act” and the “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980” (Superfund), to encourage third-party remediation of abandoned hard rock mines. The prime sponsors are Senator Roberts and Representatives Coram and Mitsch Bush.

All of the bills, resolutions, and memorials that the committee considered are available for review on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the Water Resources Review Committee, contact Jennifer Berman.
November 12, 2015
The “C” in Uniform Law Commission

by Patti Dahlberg and Thomas Morris

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in our series on the Uniform Laws Commission. The preceding articles were posted on Sept. 17 and August 6.

They come from every state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands and they are the “C” in the ULC – the Commissioners! Uniform Law Commission (ULC) commissioners must be attorneys and currently qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, law professors, legislators, and legislative staff. They are appointed by their state or territory to “research, draft, and promote” the enactment of uniform state laws. Commissioners typically serve for specific terms and receive no salaries or fees for their time or work with the ULC, thus donating literally thousands of hours of their time and expertise each year as a public service.

Each ULC state or territorial jurisdiction determines the number of its commissioners and how they are appointed; most jurisdictions specify in statute how its commissioners are appointed. In most states, the governor appoints the state’s commissioners to serve a specified term. In a few states, ULC commissioners serve at the will of the appointing authority and have no specific term.

The Colorado connection
In Colorado, the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws (CCUSL) is created in section 2-3-601 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The statute directs the General Assembly to appoint or reappoint six commissioners by joint resolution in odd-numbered years. Commissioners are appointed for two-year terms and must be currently licensed to practice law in Colorado. At least two of Colorado’s commissioners must be appointed from the General Assembly and at least two of the six must be from the public at large. The director of each state’s legislative legal service office, or the director’s designee, is ex officio a member of that state’s commission. In Colorado, the director of the General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Legal Services, Dan Cartin, appointed Thomas Morris, to serve in his stead. The six commissioners appointed or reappointed every other year serve on the CCUSL and with the ULC along with any Colorado citizen who is elected as a life member of the ULC (after 20 years of service). Currently Colorado has three commissioners who have been elected as life members: Thomas Grimshaw, Donald Mielke, and Charles Pike. You can find a list of past and current members of the CCUSL on its homepage.

Commission work at the national level
State uniform law commissioners come together as the ULC for one purpose—to study and review state laws to determine which areas of law should become more uniform. For more than a century, commissioners have, through various committees, prepared uniform law drafts and redrafts for review and approval at their annual meetings. Since its inception, the ULC has approved more than 300 uniform or model acts, of which more than 100 have been adopted by at least one state. Some have been widely adopted, including the Uniform Commercial Code, which every state has enacted. You can find a list of uniform acts that have been adopted by the Colorado General Assembly on the CCUSL homepage.

The ULC considers its major asset to be its commissioners. As a working organization, the approximately 400 commissioners participate in drafting specific acts; they discuss, consider, and amend drafts of other commissioners; they decide whether to recommend an act as a uniform or a model act; and they work toward enactment of ULC acts in their home jurisdictions. The procedures of the ULC are meant to promote the meticulous consideration of each uniform and model act and generally a minimum of four years is spent during the study, drafting, and adoption phases on each proposed act.

The ULC can only propose uniform laws; no uniform law is effective until a state legislature enacts it. Thus, the approval of a uniform act at the annual meeting constitutes the start of the commissioners’ duties of advocating for the adoption of uniform and model acts in their home jurisdictions. Uniform laws, just like any other legislative proposal, can meet resistance, but this is considered a normal and reasonable means to foster open discussions regarding the proposal on a local level.

Information about uniform acts, drafting projects, committees, meetings, and legislation is available on the ULC’s website.

For information on Colorado’s ULC connection, visit the CCUSL website.

November 5, 2015
Old Supreme Court Windows Honor Ethnic and Racial Group History in Colorado

by Melanie Pawlyszyn

How often have you sat in the Old Supreme Court Chambers and wondered, “Who are those people in the windows?” As it turns out, each window honors persons who played a significant role in the history of various ethnic and racial groups in Colorado.

The Heritage Windows on the north wall of the old Supreme Court chambers were a gift from the committee that organized the centennial celebration for Colorado in 1976 to honor four ethnic and racial groups – Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans, and Chinese and Japanese. Members from each group designed the stained glass windows, and the Elysian Glass Company manufactured each window for about $6,000. The windows honoring the African American and Hispanic communities were presented to the state on January 7, 1977, and those honoring Native Americans and Chinese and Japanese communities were dedicated on February 18, 1977.

Hispanics

photo by Melanie Pawlyszyn

Don Miera y Pacheco (1721-1785), Father Francisco Atanasio Dominguez, and Father Silverstre Velez de Escalante
Dominguez and Escalante were Franciscan monks who led an expedition through the uncharted West in 1776. The expedition’s cartographer, Don Miera y Pacheco, is the dominant figure in the window. Pacheco drew up maps and kept a detailed diary of the Dominguez-Escalante expedition that started in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and traveled up through southwestern Colorado to the Great Salt Lake in Utah, and southwest to Monterey, California. The expedition explored more unknown territory than Daniel Boone or Lewis and Clark, though it never met its objective of finding a new route from Santa Fe to Monterey.

Carlotta Espinosa designed this window, located on the far left-hand side as you face into the Old Supreme Court Chambers.

Native Americans

photo by Melanie Pawlyszyn

Chief Jack House (1892-1971)
The upper half of the window honors Chief Jack House, the last hereditary chief of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe. In his over 30 years of leadership, Chief Jack House worked to secure essential water rights for his tribe, fought for the tribe’s right of self-determination, pushed for improvements of their living conditions, and lobbied for their causes. He helped establish the tribal council, the Ute Mountain Tribal Office, and the blueprints for the tribal constitution.

Norman Lansing of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe designed this portion of the window, located directly left of the center window.

Chief Buckskin Charlie (1840-1936)
The lower half of the window depicts Chief Buckskin Charlie, the last hereditary chief of the southern Ute tribe. Chief Buckskin Charlie, often called “Charlie Buck,” was known as a pacifist leader who mediated peaceful negotiations between the Native Americans of Colorado and the Native American Agency and arranged peace talks in Washington alongside his predecessor, Chief Ouray.

Before becoming chief of the southern Ute tribe in 1880, Charlie Buck was stationed with the Federal troops at Fort Junior and was honorably discharged. As a Ute chief, he carried out Ute traditions and ceremonies and introduced new methods of farming, education, and health care to his people.

Eugene Naranjo of the southern Ute tribe designed this portion of the window.

photo by Melanie Pawlyszyn

Alexander Hunt and Chief Ouray
The center window in the Chambers is not one of the Heritage Windows. It was a gift from a descendant of Alexander Hunt, the Fifth Territorial Governor of Colorado. Governor Hunt negotiated various peace treaties with Colorado’s Native American tribes, including the Ute Treaty of 1868 with Chief Ouray of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe. In the window, the two leaders share a peace pipe, a symbol of the efforts to establish peace between the white settlers of Colorado and the Native Americans.

Senate Joint Resolution 76-32 authorized the installation of the window, which replaced a window portrait of Chief Justice Robert Wilbur Steele.

photo by Melanie Pawlyszyn

African Americans

Aunt Clara Brown (1800-1882)
Clara Brown was sold into slavery at the age of three and was married and gave birth to four children at age 18. She and her children were sold and separated in Kentucky. Brown was emancipated in 1856, after which she sought to find her children. She worked as a cook in St. Louis and then washed and cooked for 25 men to pay for her transport to Colorado in 1959, where the gold rush gave prospects of wealth.

Brown settled in Central City, where her home became a hospital, hotel, and refuge for all. She helped organize Methodist Sunday school classes at the First Methodist Church in Central City as well as in Georgetown and Denver and aided other African Americans in making their way to the West with the money she earned. She also worked in various ways to help the miners of Central City.

After saving up $10,000, Brown went back to Kentucky in 1866 to find her children. She found her daughters Margaret and Eliza Jane. She could not find her son Richard, and her third daughter Palina Ann had died at age three.

Vernon Rowlette designed this window, located directly right of the center window in the Chambers.

Chinese and Japanese

photo by Melanie Pawlyszyn

Chin Lin Sou (1837-1894)
The upper half of the window on the far right of the Chambers depicts Chin Lin Sou, a labor contractor responsible for bringing the first Chinese laborers to the United States for construction work. Chin Lin Sou, nicknamed “Willie Chin,” came to the United States from Canton, China, at age 22 to work on the Kansas Pacific Railroad. He supervised the work of Chinese laborers on the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads as well as over 300 Chinese miners in Gilpin County. Willie Chin was one of the founders of the Six Companies and the Chinese Trading and Insurance Companies, which sold supplies to his workers.

In 1870, Willie Chin became the first mayor of Denver’s Chinatown, Hop Alley, which was razed in 1950 and no longer exists. He helped his people get jobs and establish businesses and defended them against tremendous hostility, including the anti-Chinese riot in Denver on October 30, 1880.

Chen Ting-Shih designed the window.

Naoichi Hokazono (1873-1927)
The lower half of the window depicts Naoichi “Harry” Hokazono, a labor contractor who brought Japanese workers to build much of Colorado’s agriculture, mining, and construction industries. His first venture was to bring 70 Japanese laborers from Wyoming to cultivate sugar beets in Colorado. Eventually, he hired 2,000 men in agriculture, mining, and constructing dams and high-tension transmission lines.

Hokazono came to San Francisco from Kyushu, Japan, at age 11, and arrived in Colorado in 1898 at age 25. He served as president of the Japanese Association of Colorado, the Japanese Businessmen’s Association, and a printing company that published a Japanese-language newspaper.

The window was designed by Yuri Noda, a Denver resident who was born in Japan.

Information in this article can be found in “Memorials and Art In and Around the Colorado State Capitol” by the Colorado Legislative Council (June 1992) and “Our Colorado Immortals in Stained Glass” by Elaine Abrams Clearfield (June 1986).

October 29, 2015