Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Month: September 2020

  • Throwback Thursday 1920 – A Year of Unexpected Firsts

    by Patti Dahlberg

    The 1920 Summer Olympics, the first held after the end of the World War I, was awarded to Antwerp, Belgium in the hopes of bringing a spirit of renewal to a country left devastated by World War I (WWI). The games lasted from April 20 to September 12 (almost five months) and the themes centered on reconciliation between nations and remembering the victims. Although the countries defeated in WWI were not forbidden to attend the games, they were also not invited. Awarded the games in 1919, Belgium had only a short time to clear war rubble and construct new facilities and did an amazing job amidst the physical and economic chaos of post-war Europe. Granted, when the games started the athletic stadium was not yet completed and athletes were housed in crowded rooms furnished with folding cots, but that did not deter the more than 2,600 athletes representing 29 countries from participating. Unfortunately, spectator attendance was low as money was still scarce for most people, and in the final days of the games, organizers filled the stands with schoolchildren.

    The 1920 Olympics were the first games in which the now well-known Olympic flag with the symbol of five interlocking rings representing world unity and universality appeared. It was also the first time that one athlete took the Olympic oath on behalf of all the athletes and that doves, symbolizing world peace, were released during the opening ceremony. For those medal counters out there – the United States, Sweden, and Great Britain walked away from the games with the highest total medal counts overall, with 95, 64, and 43 respectively. (The 1916 Olympics, originally scheduled to be held in Berlin, Germany were canceled due to WWI [July 28, 1914 – Nov. 11, 1918]).

    Women achieved the right to vote. The United States women’s suffrage movement could be traced back to 1638, when Margaret Brent, a successful business woman in Virginia demanded the right to vote in the state’s House of Burgesses. By 1920, a mere 282 years later, nearly every state west of the Mississippi River allowed women to vote. Colorado gave women the right to vote in 1893. Finally, on August 18, 1920, the Tennessee House of Representatives voted 50-49 in favor of the 19th Amendment, which prohibited the denial of the right to vote based on sex. It was the last “yes” vote needed for ratification.

    By the way, the first woman to hold federal office was Jeannette Pickering Rankin, elected to the U.S. House Of Representatives from Montana in 1916. While in Congress, she introduced the legislation that eventually became the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

    Ratification of the 19th Amendment made the 1920 election the first in which women had the right to vote in all 48 states, and women showed up at the polls to let their voices finally be heard. The total popular vote increased dramatically from 18.5 million in 1916 to 26.8 million in 1920. It was also the first election in which both the Republican and Democratic parties, anxious to attract women’s votes, sought prominent women to speak in support of their candidates. Among them was Corinne Roosevelt Robinson, sister of Theodore Roosevelt.

    The League of Women Voters (LWV), founded in 1920, about six months before the 19th Amendment was ratified, was created to educate women on election processes and help them exercise their new responsibilities as voters. The LWV, officially a nonpartisan entity, was also formed to lobby for favorable legislation on women’s issues. Originally, only women could join the league, but in 1973, the charter was modified to include men.

    A guy named Ponzi came up with a sales idea. In the early 1900s, countries around the world created an “international reply coupon” to simplify mailing items across national borders. These coupons could be bought in one country and then traded for postage stamps in another. Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant to the U.S. found a loophole in the system. Due to economic ruin in much of Europe after WWI, Ponzi realized that he could buy coupons in various countries at a reduced cost and redeem them in the U.S. for a return on investment. Because he wanted large returns, he needed large investments. He set up a business, hired agents to bring in new investors, promising large commissions for the money brought in. Word spread and investors brought in new investors who brought in new investors. Ponzi soon realized that profit was no longer a necessary ingredient for the company to operate as investors were essentially funding each other’s commissions. The system, of course, eventually collapsed, and Charles Ponzi was arrested on August 12, 1920, and charged with 86 counts of mail fraud.

    The birth of mass media? On election night, November 2, 1920, the first commercially licensed radio station to produce a news program, KDKA in Pittsburgh, PA, began broadcasting live results of the presidential election.  The radio station, broadcasting from the rooftop of a Westinghouse Electric building, timed the news launch to allow listeners to learn the results of the election closer to “real time” instead of waiting to read about it in newspapers the next day. The election-night coverage began at 6 p.m. and was broadcasted to an estimated 1,000 people. The four men on staff at the radio station that night read telegraph ticker election results over the air as the results came in. The newscast was a hit, changing the way people received information. News began to have a greater sense of immediacy; radio could share stories with the public as the stories unfolded.

    As word spread of this transmission of “breaking news” the “talking box” exploded in popularity. Within two years, Americans had bought 100,000 radios. By 1923, they bought 500,000, and by 1926, there were more than 700 commercial radio stations. According to Eric Burns, in his book “1920: The Year That Made the Decade Roar”, no other event of 1920 would have a greater effect on the future than the birth of radio and mass media.

    More Urban than Rural. The United States Census reported for the first time that more Americans lived in urban areas than in rural areas. At that time, “urban” was defined as any town with more than 2,500 people. The 1920 census also reported that the U.S. population was more than 100 million people for the first time – 106,021,537 people to be more exact. It was also the first census in which a state, New York, recorded a population of more than 10 million people. Overall, the U.S. population increased by 15%. Colorado’s population rose from 799,024 in the 1910 census to 939,629 in 1920, up almost 18%.

    The U.S. Constitution requires that seats in the House of Representatives be reapportioned according to state populations every ten years, based on the results of the decennial census. The census of 1920 was the first-ever exception to this redistribution of representation when members of Congress failed to agree on a reapportionment plan. The distribution of seats from the 1910 census remained in effect until 1933. In 1929, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929  to provide a permanent method of reapportionment and fixed the total number of representatives at 435.

    Resources:

  • Second Reading and the Committee of the Whole – Overview of Rules

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of articles on the legislative rules that LegiSource is reposting during the 2020 legislative interim. This article was originally posted February 20, 2014, and has been edited as appropriate. We will post the fourth article in two weeks.

    The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “committee of the whole” as “the whole membership of a legislative house sitting as a committee and operating under informal rules.” But just what are those rules and how informal are they?

    Committee of the Whole

    House Rule 32
    Senate Rule 28

    Second reading begins with a motion that the body resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of either general orders or special orders. In the Senate, the motion may also be for consideration of general orders – consent calendar (see explanation below). When the motion passes, the Speaker of the House or the President steps down and selects a legislator to preside over the Committee of the Whole. The chair of the Committee of the Whole has all of the powers of the Speaker or the President that are necessary to conduct the business of the Committee. By rule in the House and by custom and practice in the Senate, the chair of the Committee of the Whole does not vote except to break a tie.

    The procedural rules of the House and the Senate apply to the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, except:

    • A legislator may speak more than twice on the same subject;
    • A legislator may not call for the ayes and noes, (i.e., a recorded vote), but a legislator may request a standing vote, known as a division, before the chair announces the outcome of the vote;
    • There’s no appeal from a decision of the chair; and
    • In the House, by rule, a motion for the previous question, which would cut off debate, and a motion for reconsideration are not in order. This also is true in the Senate, but by custom and practice, not by rule.

    The Committee of the Whole may amend a bill, pass a bill, reject a bill, refer a bill to a committee of reference, or lay a bill over for consideration on another day. All votes taken by the Committee of the Whole are voice votes, unless a Representative or Senator calls for a division before the chair of the Committee of the Whole announces the vote. In that situation, the chair takes a standing vote, first of all those in favor of the amendment or bill, and second of all those opposed to the amendment or bill. The greater number standing carries the vote. Voice votes and votes taken on division are recorded only as pass or fail; the actual names or numbers of Representatives or Senators voting on each side are not recorded.

    Consent Calendar – Senate only

    Senate Rule 25A

    The Senate can deal with several bills on second reading with a single vote by using the consent calendar. The consent calendar is used only for noncontroversial bills that do not require substantial debate or substantive floor amendments. The Majority Leader, after consulting with the Minority Leader, decides which bills are placed on the consent calendar, usually based on recommendations by committees of reference. Once a bill is placed on the consent calendar, if a Senator objects at the microphone to including the bill on the consent calendar, the bill is removed from the consent calendar and placed at the end of the general orders calendar for that day.

    The Committee of the Whole considers the bills on the consent calendar just like the other bills, except there is no substantial debate or substantive floor amendments allowed on consent calendar bills, and the Committee of the Whole takes a single vote on the consent calendar, which adopts or rejects all of the consent calendar bills on second reading.

    The House does not use a consent calendar.

    Amendments in the House – Settled Questions

    House Rules 28, 32(c), and 34

    In the House, if the Committee of the Whole takes final action on a bill, an amendment, or a committee of reference report, either by adopting or rejecting it, the same Committee of the Whole cannot take a later action that would defeat or resurrect the same bill, amendment, or committee of reference report. This is known as the “settled question” rule, and it prevents the Committee of the Whole from amending the same language twice or from amending language that the Committee has already approved.

    Because of the settled question rule, when a bill sponsor moves a bill in the House, he or she must first move the bill, then the first committee report, and then the second committee report, if there is one. The House will then consider any amendments to the second committee report before adopting or rejecting the report, then any amendments to the first committee report before adopting or rejecting the report, and finally any amendments to the bill before adopting or rejecting the bill. If a Representative has an amendment to the first committee report, and that report has already been adopted, the amendment is a settled question and the chair will likely rule that the amendment is out of order.

    Each amendment must relate to the same subject as the original bill. If a Representative offers an amendment to a pending amendment or offers a substitute amendment to a pending amendment, the offered amendment must be germane to the subject of the pending amendment. For example, if a Representative offers an amendment to change the amount of a fee in the bill, another Representative cannot offer an amendment as a substitute to the pending amendment that would change the date on which the bill takes effect. But another Representative may offer a substitute amendment to the pending amendment to strike the fee requirement from the bill.

    Each substantial amendment must be printed and distributed to the House members. In practice, this means that, if a Representative wants to offer an amendment that is longer than a page, the Representative must turn the amendment in to the Chief Clerk of the House no later than 4:30 p.m. the day before the bill is heard on second reading. During the Committee of the Whole, a Representative may move to lay a bill over so that the amendments that have been offered on the bill can be printed and distributed to the members.

    An amendment to strike out the enacting clause of a bill takes precedence over any other motion relating to a bill. The amendment opens the question of passage of the bill to general debate and, if the amendment passes, the bill is dead.

    Amendments in the Senate

    Senate Rules 5 and 25(h)

    In the Senate, to offer an amendment to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a Senator must have the amendment typed and must turn it in to the Secretary of the Senate, who numbers each amendment in the order in which it is received.

    The settled question rule does not exist in the Senate. The Committee of the Whole in the Senate can amend the same language in a bill multiple times, and the last amendment that the Committee adopts is the one that is enrolled into the bill for consideration on third reading.

    When a Senator presents a bill to the Committee of the Whole, he or she moves the bill and then moves the first committee report and the committee either adopts or rejects the first committee report. If there are other committee reports, the bill sponsor moves each of those reports, and the Committee either adopts or rejects each report when it is moved. Then the Senators individually move their amendments, whether to one of the committee reports or to the bill, in the order that each amendment was turned in to the Secretary. The Committee must consider every amendment that is turned in to the Secretary unless the sponsoring Senator withdraws the amendment.

    As in the House, an amendment to strike the enacting clause takes precedence over other amendments to a bill. Passage of an amendment to strike the enacting clause kills the bill.

    Updated Fiscal Notes

    House Rule 32A(c)
    Senate Rule 25(e)

    In the Senate, upon the request of five or more members, the legislative council staff will update the fiscal note for a bill that may have a significant effect on the revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability of the state. If requested, the bill cannot pass on second reading until the fiscal note is updated.

    In the House, a request for a revised fiscal note requires at least 10 Representatives. As in the Senate, once the updated fiscal note is requested, the bill cannot be considered on second reading until the updated fiscal note is prepared.

    Committee of the Whole Report

    House Rule 32
    Senate Rules 17(e), 17(f)(1), 25(f), 28(e), and 28 (g)

    Once the Committee of the Whole completes its work, a person – usually the majority leader – moves that the Committee rise and report. If the Committee isn’t actually done, but is taking a break and coming back on the same day or on the following day, the majority leader will move to rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again. Both motions are decided without debate. If the motion is to report progress and sit again, when the Committee returns, it resumes its work where it left off.

    When the Committee of the Whole finishes and rises and reports, the actions the Committee took on every bill that it considered, including the amendments adopted on each bill, are summarized in the report of the Committee of the Whole. The person who chaired the Committee moves that the House or the Senate, as the case may be, adopt the report of the Committee of the Whole.

    The report of the Committee of the Whole is similar to a report from any other committee – the body that adopts the report can amend it. In the case of the Committee of the Whole report, an amendment to the report reverses the action that the Committee took with regard to a bill or amendment. For example, a legislator may move to amend the Committee of the Whole report to show that a bill or amendment that the Committee passed did not pass. Or a legislator may move to amend the report to show that a bill or amendment that the Committee rejected did pass. In the Senate, a Senator may move an amendment to the Committee of the Whole report to show that an amendment that was not actually offered in the Committee of the Whole passed. The House will only consider amendments to the Committee of the Whole report that affect amendments on which the Committee voted.

    Each amendment to the Committee of the Whole report and the report itself requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the elected members to pass: 33 votes in the House and 18 votes in the Senate. Each legislator’s vote on an amendment to the Committee of the Whole report and on the report itself is recorded. In the Senate, a Senator may request a recorded roll call vote on any individual bill that is included in the Committee of the Whole report.

    Each bill that passes on second reading is then engrossed or revised and calendared for consideration on third reading. Engrossing, which occurs in the first house of introduction, and revising, which occurs in the second house of introduction, means that all of the amendments to the bill that are included in the adopted Committee of the Whole report are typed into the bill to create a new version of the bill: The engrossed version in the first house of introduction and the revised version in the second house of introduction. It is important to note that, after second reading, the operative version of a bill in the first house is the engrossed version, regardless of whether it was amended. Similarly, the operative version in the second house is the revised version, regardless of whether it was amended.

    Reconsideration

    House Rules 32 and 35(d)
    Senate Rule 18

    In the House, a Representative cannot move to reconsider a decision made by the Committee of the Whole. And an amendment to the Committee of the Whole report and adoption or rejection of the Committee of the Whole report and any bill included in the report are not subject to reconsideration.

    In the Senate, a Senator cannot move to reconsider a decision made by the Committee of the Whole. However, a Senator can give notice of the intent to move to reconsider or move for immediate reconsideration of an action taken on an amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, the adoption or rejection of the Committee of the Whole report, or the adoption or rejection of a specific bill included in the Committee of the Whole report. For more information on reconsideration, see the LegiSource article: “The Four W’s and One H of Reconsideration of a Previous Vote.”

  • Federal Free Exercise Clause Defeats State No-aid Provisions

    by Brita Darling

    Loyal readers of LegiSource[1] are already aware of the evolving body of law concerning the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the religious “no-aid” provisions contained in many states’ constitutions, including Colorado’s.[2] The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue,[3] while not declaring these state no-aid provisions unconstitutional, significantly narrowed the instances in which state aid may be restricted from flowing to religious schools.

    The case concerns a tax credit program created by the Montana legislature. Under the program, a person donating to a nonprofit organization that provides scholarships to low-income students to attend secondary schools may receive an income tax credit of $150 for a contribution of $150 or more. Upon award of a scholarship from the nonprofit organization, the parent and student decide which private school to attend. The school must meet the broad statutory definition of a “qualified education provider,” which definition includes religious and nonreligious schools.

    Montana has a constitutional no-aid provision, similar to Article IX, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution, which prohibits the state from providing aid to a school that is controlled by a “church, sect, or denomination.” While the Montana statute creating the tax credit program did not exclude religious schools from the broad definition of qualified education provider, the statute specifically states that the program must be administered by the state’s Department of Revenue in compliance with the constitutional no-aid provision. To that end, the department adopted a rule that prohibited a parent and student from using the scholarship at a religious school.

    Three parents sued to challenge the rule that excluded religious schools from the program. The Montana Supreme Court held that the department exceeded its authority in promulgating the rule, because the rule conflicted with the statutory definition of qualified education provider. The court also held that the program was unconstitutional because, by including religious schools in the definition of qualified education provider, the statute violated the state’s no-aid provision. Because the court had no mechanism to bring the program into compliance with the no-aid provision, the court invalidated the entire program.

    In a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that Montana’s application of its no-aid provision violated the Free Exercise Clause because it excluded aid to certain schools based purely on their status as religious schools. Citing the Court’s 2017 holding in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,[4] “[t]he Free Exercise Clause, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘protects religious observers against unequal treatment’ and against ‘laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.”‘ In Trinity Lutheran, the Court’s holding was limited to religious status discrimination in a playground resurfacing program, with the Court specifically declining to decide the issue of religious use of state aid.

    Acknowledging the Court’s distinction between religious status and religious use in Trinity Lutheran, the Court noted that concerns about religious use of the money were not the basis on which the Montana Supreme invalidated the program. Similar to the reasoning in Trinity Lutheran, the Court stated, “[t]his case also turns expressly on religious status and not religious use.” Discrimination based on religious status must satisfy the strict scrutiny standard of legal review. Applying that standard, the Court found that Montana failed to show sufficiently compelling state interests to justify its discrimination against religious schools. Further, the Court reinstated the program, explaining that the Montana Supreme Court should have recognized that applying the no-aid provision violated the federal Free Exercise Clause and should have therefore “rejected the invitation” to do so in favor of deciding the case under federal law as required by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[5] Had it done so, the Court stated, it would not have invalidated the scholarship program under state law.

    However, similar to Trinity Lutheran, the Court did not declare Montana’s no-aid provision unconstitutional on its face, but only as applied in this case. This leaves Colorado’s constitutional no-aid provision technically intact for now. And the Court seems to leave some room for constitutionally denying aid to a private organization on the basis that the aid will be put to a religious use.[6] However, it is difficult to predict what this type of exclusion would look like or how it could be implemented while still avoiding government’s excessive entanglement with an organization’s religious practices, which has been prohibited in earlier cases.[7]

    What does Espinoza mean for Colorado?

    Does the holding in Espinoza mean that the state is required to fund religious organizations or schools – or any private organizations or schools? The short answer is, “No.”

    Nothing in the Espinoza decision requires the state to fund private education or school choice scholarships, tax credits, or other programs that have the effect, directly or indirectly, of supporting private organizations or schools, whether religious or nonreligious. The Espinoza Court states this clearly:

    The State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.

    The state may continue to use 100% of available public money to support public institutions and public schools and, in fact, the Colorado Constitution requires the state to establish and maintain public schools.[8] Further, the General Assembly remains free to weigh policy decisions regarding the best use of public funds, whether to forego tax revenue, and whether to condition the receipt of public funds on compliance with participant qualifications, program outcomes, and financial reporting.  However, Colorado should be cautious if religious organizations or schools appear to be categorically excluded from sharing in the same opportunities or benefits that flow to nonreligious private organizations or schools, whether due to statute or the application of the no-aid provision.

     

     

    [1] U.S. Supreme Court Resolves a Playground Fight, August 3, 2017; Missouri Tires – Colorado Schools, March 10, 2017.

    [2] Article IX, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution prohibits the state from using public funds in aid of a church, or for a sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain a church school. Colorado’s provision and other states’ provisions are also referred to as “Blaine amendments” after a failed effort by U.S. Representative James Blaine to include similar language in the U. S. Constitution.

    [3] Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, et al., No 18-1195 (2020).

    [4] Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 2012.

    [5] Id. at 22.

    [6] Id. at 11-12. However, the Court recognized that some Court members “have questioned whether there is a meaningful distinction between discrimination based on use or conduct and that based on status.”

    [7] See, e.g., Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2008).

    [8] Article IX, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.

  • Legislative Council Staff Wraps Up the 2020 Blue Book

    by Cathy Eslinger

    The Legislative Council Committee will meet tomorrow, Thursday, September 3, to review analyses of the measures that the secretary of state has certified to the 2020 general election ballot. This year’s ballot will include 11 measures, the majority of which—seven—are on the ballot because each received at least 124,632 signatures on initiative petitions. Of the remaining four, the General Assembly referred three of them to the ballot and the people referred one to the ballot by petition.

    As required by the state constitution and by statute the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) has been working for weeks to prepare the analyses to help the public understand the purpose and effect of each measure. Following the Legislative Council’s review, the LCS will mail the analyses, printed in the familiar “blue book,” to each registered-voter household in the state.

    The LCS prepares a blue book before each general election for which initiated or referred constitutional or statutory amendments or questions are certified to the ballot. The analysis of each measure includes a summary of the measure, the major arguments for and against the measure, and a brief fiscal assessment of the measure. The analysis may also include other information that can help voters understand the measure’s purpose and effect. The goal is to write an analysis that is concise, readable for a layperson, and factually correct. In even‑numbered years, state law also requires that the blue book include information about the judges who are standing for retention in the coming election. The state commission and district commissions on judicial performance prepare this information and provide it to the LCS.

    Each analysis typically goes through three drafts. But, depending on the complexity of the measure and the time available, some may require only two drafts. The LCS interviews proponents, opponents, and other stakeholders, using information provided by them, as well as information obtained through the LCS’s own research, to prepare and amend drafts.

    The LCS maintains a stakeholder mailing list of individuals who express interest in receiving drafts and posts the draft analyses on a page on the General Assembly website along with the text of each measure. Any person may file written comments for staff to consider in preparing the drafts. The staff consider all comments and proposed amendments submitted by the established deadlines, but use discretion in changing the analysis. Some of the criteria for making proposed changes to the analysis include:

    • Avoiding slogan-type language that triggers a response but does not contribute to greater understanding of the measure;
    • Ensuring that statements are verifiable statements of fact rather than mere opinion, directly applicable to the measure, and not misleading;
    • Ensuring that the language specifically strengthens or clarifies the arguments and is not repetitive;
    • Maintaining the balance of the analysis between the opposing sides; and
    • Avoiding language that is more appropriate for the campaigns conducted by the opposing sides.

    As part of the analysis, the LCS also prepares a fiscal impact statement for each measure, taking into consideration fiscal impact information submitted by various state and local agencies, proponents and opponents, and other interested persons. The blue book will include a summary of each measure’s fiscal assessment, and the full fiscal impact statement for each measure will be available on the blue book website. At a minimum, the summary must include:

    • An estimate of the measure’s effect on state and local government revenues, expenditures, taxes, and fiscal liabilities;
    • An estimate of the amount of any state and local government recurring expenditures or fiscal liabilities; and
    • For a measure that modifies the state tax laws, an estimate of the impact to the average taxpayer, if feasible.

    The LCS submits a final draft of each analysis to the Legislative Council Committee, which holds a public hearing to review the analyses. Anyone who is interested in testifying on the accuracy or fairness of an analysis may do so at this public hearing. The Legislative Council may change the language of an analysis upon a two-thirds affirmative vote of the council members. Before the public hearing, the LCS will post on the General Assembly website information for each analysis that includes the final draft, any comments and amendments submitted to the last draft mailed to stakeholders, a list of persons who had opportunity to comment on the last draft, and the text of the measure.

    Following the public hearing, the LCS mails copies of the blue book to each registered-voter household in the state no later than 30 days prior to the election. This year, the scheduled mailing date is Oct. 2. The LCS will also be mailing a Spanish language version of the book to each registered-voter household in counties identified by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Voting Rights Act.  In 2020, these counties include Conejos, Costilla, Denver, and Saguache. Staff contracts with a professional translation service to prepare these materials.

    In addition, when the blue book is ready for mailing, no later than September 10 this year, the LCS will post both the English and Spanish versions to the blue book page on the General Assembly website.

    If you would like more detailed information concerning the process for preparing the blue book, check the General Assembly’s website.