Happy New Year!
We wish you a happy and healthy 2024.

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
This is the final part in a series of three articles summarizing this year’s interim committee actions. As previously mentioned, we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the series. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.
Sales and Use Task Simplification Task Force
The task force met four times during the interim. It heard presentations from the Department of Revenue, the Colorado Municipal League, local government representatives, and private industry stakeholders. The meetings included public testimony and discussions relating to the electronic Sales and Use Tax System (SUTS), the need for accurate and up-to-date information from local taxing jurisdictions, thresholds for filing sales and use tax returns, participation by home rule municipalities, and local lodging taxes. The task force requested and recommended five bills to the Legislative Council as follows:
Transportation Legislation Review Committee
The committee met three times and heard presentations from the Public Utilities Commission, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, towing and recovery industry, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, Sierra Club, Department of Transportation, railroad industry, transportation industry labor unions, the Regional Transportation District, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Freight Panel Advisory Committee, Bicycle Colorado and the American Automobile Association of Colorado, Colorado Municipal League, the Greeley Evans Transit, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, the Public Highway Authorities, and the Colorado Energy Office. The committee recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:
Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee
The committee, which is actually a year-round committee, met four times during the interim and heard presentations concerning the Colorado River drought, pesticide regulation, impacts of conservation on water rights, reintroduction of gray wolves, tribal nations’ water rights, artificial turf, public rights on rivers, and stream restoration. The committee had 10 bills drafted and recommended the following nine bills to the Legislative Council:
Wildfire Matters Review Committee
The committee met four times during the 2023 interim. The committee heard testimony from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Prevention and Control, Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaboration, Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Counties, Inc., University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Colorado Rural Electric Association, Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities, Department of Public Health and Environment & Department of Public Safety, Colorado Forest Health Council, Center for Independence , Center for People with Disabilities, Special District Association, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Colorado Division of Insurance, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, Colorado State Fire Chiefs. The committee requested the drafting of nine bills and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:
This is the second of three articles summarizing this year’s interim committee actions. As mentioned in Part 1 last week, we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.
The committee met five times during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from multiple stakeholders, behavioral and mental health advocates, and representatives from state executive departments concerning issues facing persons with behavioral health disorders who have been in contact, in one form or another, with the criminal or juvenile justice systems. The committee requested seven bills to be drafted and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:
The Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Study Committee
The committee met six times during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from multiple stakeholders, state agencies, behavioral and mental health advocates, and other interested parties concerning the issues facing individuals with substance use disorders. The committee requested five bills to be drafted and recommended the following four bills to the Legislative Council for consideration:
Pension Review Commission and Pension Review Subcommittee
The commission met twice during the 2023 interim. It heard presentations from the Fire and Police Pension Association and the Public Employees’ Retirement Association. In addition, the commission heard proposals for legislation from its own Pension Review Subcommittee. The subcommittee met three times during the 2023 interim to: (1) Hear presentations from PERA; (2) Discuss proposed legislation and questions to be submitted to PERA; (3) Hear from PERA regarding answers to their submitted questions; (4) Discuss inflation relief for PERA retirees; and (5) Discuss its annual reports to the General Assembly and the citizens of Colorado. The commission requested that six bills be drafted and recommended the four following bills to the Legislative Council for introduction:
Recidivism Interim Study Committee
The committee met three times during the 2023 interim to review Colorado state agency and department definitions of recidivism; examine other state and academic approaches to defining recidivism; review means other than recidivism that can be used to measure program success; and evaluate aligning agency and department recidivism definitions. It heard presentations from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Treatment of Persons with Behavioral Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Task Force, various state departments, the state board of parole, the state public defender, the judicial branch, and experts in the field of criminal justice and recidivism. The committee requested three bills be drafted and recommended each of the three drafts to the Legislative Council for its consideration.
Next week in Part 3, the final part of this series, will summarize the actions of four additional committees that met during this interim.
Several legislative committees held public meetings since the end of the last legislative session to discuss topics relevant to Colorado and to recommend legislation to the Legislative Council committee for approval for introduction in 2024. In this article we’re providing summaries of four of 12 committees and their recommended legislation. This is the first of three articles summarizing this interim’s committee actions. The Legislative Council met on Wednesday, November 15, to review interim committee legislation proposals. Click here to listen to the Legislative Council meeting.
Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee
The committee met twice during the interim and heard various updates on the insurance marketplace around the state. In particular, the committee heard updates from:
The committee recommended one bill to the Legislative Council to modify provisions governing the state health benefit exchange by eliminating the requirement for the board of directors of the exchange to submit a report on the development of the exchange to the Governor and the General Assembly by January 15, and instead requiring the report to be submitted annually and to address open enrollment; requiring the board to also present an open enrollment update to specified legislative committees during each legislative session; requiring the exchange, rather than the board, to annually present to the committee the exchange’s financial and operational plans and the major actions taken by the board; modifying the number of meetings of the committee during the interim; and eliminating from the committee membership appointees who are members of the legislative audit committee.
Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee
The committee met three times during the interim. It heard presentations from its student members about gun violence, hygiene products, Asian American and Pacific Islander history, gender-affirming care, non-legal name changes, and increasing the number of school psychologists. The committee had six bills drafted and recommended the following three bills to the Legislative Council.
Colorado’s Child Welfare System Interim Study Committee
The committee met five times during the 2023 interim. It requested 10 bills be drafted and recommended the following five bills to the Legislative Council:
Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy
The committee met five times during the interim. It heard presentations on the affordable housing tax credit, the Attorney General’s opinion concerning the Tyler v. Hennepin County case, affordable housing for low income individuals, the Department of Local Affairs and the Office of Economic Development and International Trade’s administration of Proposition 123, and property tax “circuit breakers”.
Additionally, the state auditor’s office presented tax expenditure evaluations. The committee also set forth the scope of tax policies to be considered by its subordinate Task Force Concerning Tax Policy to include applying the state income tax to federal adjusted gross income rather than federal taxable income, the construction of affordable housing units, options for addressing the affordability of home ownership and rental housing, and the creation of a permanent fund associated with the state’s levy and collection of severance tax. The committee requested 10 bills for drafting and recommended five to the Legislative Council for introduction:
Next week Part 2 of this series will summarize the actions of four additional committees that met during this interim. And Part 3 will summarize the last four committees the following week.
by Conrad Imel and Pierce Lively
You might be familiar with the “safety clause” that is included at the end of some bills, but that clause now looks a little different. To better reflect the language in the Colorado Constitution, for all bills going forward the safety clause will be:
“The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state institutions.” (New language in bold.)
In this article, we will explain a little background about the safety clause and why the Office of Legislative Legal Services decided to make this technical change.
The language of the safety clause derives from the stated exception to the referendum power described in article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. At the general election held in 1910, Colorado voters adopted an amendment to the constitution to give the people the authority to make laws through the powers of initiative and referendum (for more information about both the initiative and referendum powers, check out this LegiSource article). The referendum power as set forth in article V, section 1 (3) reads as follows:
“(3) The second power hereby reserved is the referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general election or by the general assembly. [. . .].”
What this means is that the people of Colorado may rescind all or part of an act passed by the General Assembly. By collecting and submitting signatures to the Secretary of State, an individual may place all or part of an act on the ballot for voter approval or disapproval. There is an exception, however, to this power: if the act is necessary 1) for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety; or 2) for appropriations to support a state agency or institution. The General Assembly invokes the exception by including a “safety clause” at the end of the act.
The very first bill enacted with a safety clause, House Bill 348 adopted in 1913, referenced both types of laws excepted from the referendum power: “In the opinion of the General Assembly this act is necessary for the support and maintenance of the department of State and state institutions and it is hereby declared to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.” Initially, the General Assembly used inconsistent safety clause language, but for the past 75 years or so, the safety clause has only included the language related to the act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.
Which brings us to today. Prompted by discussions among Office of Legislative Legal Services staff, the Joint Budget Committee and Joint Budget Committee staff, the Office of Legislative Legal Services has decided to update the safety clause to reflect both types of acts excepted from the referendum power: preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or appropriations to support a state agency or institution. This change does not alter the standard for when a safety clause may be included on a bill; it merely makes the safety clause better reflect the language in the constitution. It remains within the General Assembly’s discretion to invoke an exception to the referendum power by including a safety clause.
Office of Legislative Legal Services staff has updated existing bill drafts that include a safety clause, including interim committee bill drafts, with the updated language. We hope this article helps legislators and the public understand the updated safety clause that they’ll start seeing on bills.
Happy Thanksgiving from the Office of Legislative Legal Services
Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on May 10, 2012, and has been updated with information pertaining to the upcoming special session commencing November 17, 2023.
The Governor recently issued an executive order calling the General Assembly into a legislative special session. At this point, many legislators and other people may be wondering what, exactly, is a special session and how does it work?
The most obvious things that are different about a special legislative session are:
Governor’s Authority: Article IV, section 9 of the Colorado constitution authorizes the Governor to convene the General Assembly “on extraordinary occasions” by a proclamation, known as “the call,” that specifies the purposes for which the General Assembly is to convene. The only business the General Assembly may transact during the special session is the business the Governor specifically identifies in the call. The Governor decides what is an extraordinary occasion and sets the agenda of issues that the General Assembly may consider. The Governor’s call also sets the date and time at which the special session must begin.
The Governor’s recent call and subsequent amendments to the call, direct the General Assembly to convene in special session at 9:00 a.m. on November 17, 2023. The Governor has identified several issues that the General Assembly may consider, mostly related to addressing the effects of Colorado’s rising home values and corresponding increases in property tax bills to provide relief to those affected by the steep rise in in the cost of living:
Agenda Items: The Governor sets the agenda items, but the Colorado Supreme Court has held that he cannot prescribe the specific form of legislation; he cannot describe the agenda items so narrowly that the General Assembly is forced, in the words of the Court, “to do the bidding of the governor, or not act at all.” The General Assembly decides whether to enact legislation to address the agenda items and, if enacted, how the legislation will address the agenda items.
It is the advice of the Office of Legislative Legal Services that the question of whether a bill or resolution fits within the agenda items is a substantive, not a procedural, question and cannot be decided by a ruling of the chair of a committee or by a ruling of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similar to deciding whether a bill is constitutional, the Senate and the House of Representatives decide whether a bill fits within the agenda items when they vote on the bill or resolution.
Timing: Although the General Assembly must convene on the date and time specified in the call, the General Assembly need not pass, nor even consider, any legislation while in special session, and the General Assembly decides how long the session will last. The Governor may not set a date by which the General Assembly must adjourn.
General Assembly’s Authority: During a special session, the General Assembly retains its full plenary authority, other than being limited to considering only the agenda items. The General Assembly may convene and, after establishing the presence of a quorum, immediately adjourn. The General Assembly may consider but refuse to pass any legislation during a special session, or it may pass one or more bills that address one or more of the agenda items on the Governor’s call. The Governor has no authority to either force the General Assembly to stay in session or force the General Assembly to adjourn.
Rules and Procedure: Although the agenda is limited, a special session operates under the same constitutional requirements and legislative rules, other than the deadline schedule, that apply during a regular session:
All of the legislative rules with regard to committees and the operations of the Senate and the House that apply in a regular legislative session also apply in a special legislation session. If you have additional questions about how the General Assembly operates during a special session, please consult the special session FAQ memo available on the Office of Legislative Legal Services website
by Sarah Meisch
Colorado’s State Lines
In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the US created its states, prioritizing geometric simplicity over geographical variance. Colorado stands uniquely symmetrical and rectangular among other states, and Part 2 of this series will examine how Colorado’s shape and dimensions were placed – and why its borders have been so controversial.
Throughout its history, Colorado has been under the control of France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the US. The Rocky Mountains formed a natural barrier between the American-owned Louisiana Purchase lands and the area belonging to Spanish Mexico. What would become the western and southern parts of Colorado were acquired by the US government through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Before the Anglo population grew in Colorado, the land was occupied by several indigenous tribes, including the Ute, Jicarilla Apache, Arapaho, Anasazi, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Pueblo, and Shoshone. Many of these tribes were forced to consolidate or give up their land when white settlers moved into the region. When Kansas Territory was created in 1854, most of central Colorado and the eastern plains were absorbed into Kansas; the parts of Colorado that lay west of the Rocky Mountains had become part of Utah Territory in 1850.
Following the Pike’s Peak gold rush of 1858-1860, the Front Range and foothills of the Rocky Mountains became more heavily populated, with most of the growth attributed to young and single male miners. The population would diminish over the following years as the spoils of the gold rush faded and the lawlessness of the region made the area unsettling for young families.
With Kansas Territory’s capital being in eastern Kansas, inhabitants of present-day Colorado began to wish for a closer form of government, as well as more locally-enforced law enforcement of the region. In November 1858, Denver residents elected a delegate to the US Congress to officially request that Congress create a new territory.
Colorado’s request was particularly troublesome, as the territorial population was strongly Republican, and Southern Democrats were concerned they would not find support in the area. In the heat of deadlock over the slavery debate, Congress would refuse to act on this request until 1861.
In 1859, Colorado residents decided to take matters into their own hands and, without congressional approval, formed Jefferson Territory, named after the president who had overseen the Louisiana Purchase. For a year and a half, the territory illegitimately elected officials, created territorial boundaries, and established a legislature that adopted legislation related to personal and civil rights. The enlarged borders of Jefferson Territory would have made Colorado about 70% larger than it is today and would have included areas within Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, and Kansas. This additional land would have contained much of the gold and silver of the region for mining and would also have brought the territory agricultural land, diversifying the economy of the territory from relying entirely on mineral resources. Geographically centering the Rocky Mountains within Jefferson Territory, rather than placing the mountains at the borders, would also “prevent disputes over profitable mining claims.”[1]
Creating a provisional territory was not unusual. Other parts of the country had instituted provisional governments until Congress officially recognized territorial governments: Deseret became Utah and the State of Franklin became Tennessee. Jefferson Territory adopted a similar extralegal approach until Congress had established an official territory.
A census found that Colorado was occupied by only 34,277 residents in 1860, making it too small to be a state but large enough for another structure of government. And most Colorado voters refused to vote for statehood when they had the opportunity in 1864, due to the higher taxation associated with new statehood. As a territory, the federal government footed the bills; however, this made the extralegal entity of Jefferson Territory unable to collect taxes from residents.
Jefferson Territory ceased to exist when Congress and President Buchanan created the Colorado Territory on February 28, 1861. Members of Congress opposed naming states and territories after individuals, so the name Jefferson was dropped. Although some legislators favored naming the new territory “Idaho,” the delegate from Colorado successfully convinced legislators that “Colorado” would be a more fitting name, as the Colorado River started within the territory. Jefferson County is the sole remaining county from Jefferson Territory.
In the 1860s, there were several attempts by residents to make Colorado a state, but with Civil War and Reconstruction era policies dividing up the political scene in Washington, Colorado was not admitted as a state until 1876.[2]
The Borders of Colorado
The eastern border of Colorado was determined by Kansas’ western border when Kansas achieved statehood in 1861, only a month before Colorado Territory was created. A contentious statehood debate raged over the possibility of a “Big Kansas,” which would have included large swaths of Nebraska and possibly areas of Colorado that had already been part of Kansas Territory. Some Kansans raised concerns over how the population of the mining areas in Colorado would upset the balance of power in Kansas. During the 1859 Wyandotte constitutional convention in Kansas, some local delegates claimed that eastern and western Kansas Territory varied too widely in culture and politics or that the Kansas government was too far away from the mining areas of Colorado to provide much responsiveness; linking these areas permanently in statehood would raise the potential for conflict. Others were concerned with the cost of having such a large state, with Republican delegate and future Kansas congressman M.F. Conway stating, “Had we retained the Pike’s Peak region, the mere mileage of the members of the Legislature and officers going to and returning from the State capital would more than exceed the cost of the whole State government.” Political divisions were clear on the matter, as “many Democrats opposed the exclusion of the western territory, while many Republicans approved of the rejection.”[3]
The arguments for keeping part of present-day Colorado with Kansas were resource-driven. Some wanted the wealth of the mining industry in the Rockies to flow to Kansas, and others believed that the railroad builders would look favorably upon investing in Kansas with its connections to Colorado mineral resources. A few members of the convention argued that cutting off the Rockies and their mining settlements would bring the population of Kansas down to a point where statehood would be off the table, as territories needed to cross a certain population threshold to become a state.
In 1859, the Wyandotte constitutional convention agreed with the “Little Kansas” proponents, which gave the state of Kansas its current size. Creating a homogenous Kansas and allowing the miners to create a government for their region was well-received in both Colorado and Kansas.
When Colorado residents, including many miners, drew the boundaries for the extralegal Jefferson Territory, the same line was drawn with Kansas, exemplifying inhabitants’ agreement with Kansas’ proposed boundary line. Kansas became a state in 1861, solidifying the boundaries voted on in the Wyandotte constitution.
Congress drew Colorado’s western borders according to the equitable principles outlined in Part 1, and with the western landscape largely open, Congress had a chance to make border divisions as equal as possible. The prairie states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas all have three latitudinal degrees of height. Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana have four latitudinal degrees of height – the extra degree, given out of fairness, allows for the less arable agricultural land these states share. Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oregon, and Washington also have nearly seven longitudinal degrees of width per state. This was intentionally done to promote border equality in the western states. Therefore, the western border Colorado shares with Utah was drawn to give the state seven longitudinal degrees of width from the border with Kansas.
The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.
However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.
The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.
Colorado’s southern border with New Mexico was largely determined by the territorial acts of Utah and New Mexico in 1850 and has been rooted in controversy and violence. Colorado residents initially lobbied for Jefferson Territory to include northern New Mexico. There were several gold mines in the north central part of New Mexico Territory, and Coloradans wanted access to as much gold as possible to sustain its thriving mining industry. This expansion also unconstitutionally included a corner of Texas. When Congress set the southern border at the 37th parallel, it did so with the same logic that determined Colorado’s northern border – a desire to create a column of states with the same height and width. Simplicity of shape and size were prioritized over geography, and the border setting truncated the Hispano population in the San Luis Valley of New Mexico Territory. This set off animosity at the local level and in Congress.
In May of 1862, the House of Representatives debated dividing New Mexico in order to create Arizona Territory, and New Mexico’s delegates voiced anger over Colorado’s border with New Mexico Territory. John S. Watts, the delegate from New Mexico, recalled how residents of the San Luis Valley were betrayed when Colorado Territory was made “merely for the purpose of beautifying the lines of the new Territory of Colorado.” The following year, New Mexico’s legislature expressed resentment at the loss of territory and memorialized Congress about the boundary with Colorado, which had been left unsurveyed. New Mexico claimed that Colorado had taken advantage of the unsurveyed land and had started exercising their authority much further south than they were entitled to.
In 1865, New Mexico delegate Francisco Perea spoke before the House Committee on the Territories in favor of bringing the San Luis Valley settlements back into New Mexico Territory. He derided the “evenness and symmetry” of Colorado’s southern boundary, stating that the focus on a straight border cut off a fertile part of New Mexico and betrayed the long-standing interests of people who had always belonged to the rest of the New Mexico Hispano culture. His sentiments were echoed by the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, which wrote that although clean-cut borders were pleasing to the eye, the border setting between New Mexico and Colorado did a disservice to the local population of Hispanos. In the end, Congress refused to change Colorado’s southern border, beyond addressing small surveying inaccuracies.
Surveying ambiguities over the exact location of the border were left unresolved by Congress over the years, despite mounting frustration from New Mexico. In 1925, the US Supreme Court deemed that although a more accurate survey of the border existed, the boundary in force took precedence over a later survey. This confirmed that New Mexico would officially lose thousands of acres to Colorado.
So it is that Colorado stretches from 37 degrees to 41 degrees latitude and 25 degrees to 32 degrees longitude. And you might be surprised to learn that it does not have four sides, but 697 – due to a large amount of small surveying errors. There have been attempts to change Colorado’s borders; as recently as 2013, northeastern Colorado county commissioners encouraged a small movement for the area to become its own state, which would be known as North Colorado or New Colorado. This was mostly a symbolic discussion, as some Colorado counties wanted to make a statement against policies being made at the state level. The boundaries determined by the state constitution in 1876, however, have not changed since Colorado became a state.
Colorado’s borders were influenced by a desire by the US government to create states of equitable size, placing a priority on geometric design instead of working around or with geographic barriers. Colorado’s four borders are consistent with this policy and have given us a uniquely symmetrical shape and size on the nation’s map.
[1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 14.
[2] To read more about Colorado’s failed attempts at achieving statehood before 1876, please see the following article: https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/31/civil-rights-role-in-colorado-statehood/
[3] Gower, “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question.”
References
Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.
American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.
“Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect
Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.
Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.
Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.
Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.
Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.
Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.
History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.
History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.
History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.
Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.
“Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.
Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.
Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.
Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.
Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).
Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.
The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.
Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.
www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.
Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.
Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.
Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.
by Sarah Meisch
How State Lines are Drawn
Looking at a map of the United States, one spots a difference between the symmetrical states in the West and the more irregular borders of the East. At first glance, Colorado seems to have been easily drawn with its four clean borders. But why don’t we have the winding borders the eastern states have? Why are our mountains in the middle of the state, rather than drawn as a border? Is there a reason for the way our state cuts into part of Nebraska? This two-part series will address these questions and more, showing how the placement of Colorado’s state and territorial lines was part of a grander vision for political and cartographical harmony across the United States.
Throughout its history, the US has drawn its state and territorial borders according to geometry, with a focus on equity between the states and their resources. The Confederation government (1781-1789) solidified the Enlightenment-era precedent of drawing boundaries in straight lines through several ordinances in the 1780s, creating a distinct preference for geometry over geography. Most scholars of boundary-making have expressed disapproval of this approach, with historian James Bryce writing in the 1880s that state lines “are for the most part not natural boundaries fixed by mountain ranges, nor even historical boundaries due to a series of events, but purely artificial boundaries determined by an authority which carved the national territory into strips of convenient size.”
In the US, only part of a single state line follows a chain of mountains; this line lies along the Continental Divide dividing Idaho and Montana. Only one-third of states incorporate rivers into their boundaries, and outside of relatively small surveying errors, American states are generally neat and well-defined. It was always the intention of the US government to create cleaner boundaries based on straight lines, rather than borders based on unpredictable natural barriers. This explains the confusion over the state boundaries here in Colorado, as according to historian Derek Everett “geographically, there is no sensible reason for the state of Colorado to exist….[T]he simple rectangle that demarcates Colorado’s boundaries affords practically nothing…capable of bringing this disparate region into a single political entity.”[1]
However, in spite of the criticism aimed at geometric boundary-making, drawing lines based on geography has its drawbacks. Rivers are unreliable boundaries because they change dramatically over time; there have been several issues with the Missouri River as a boundary-maker over the years, as parts of Nebraska were found on the Missouri side of the river in the 1870s. Only the most entrenched and immovable rivers can realistically be used as boundaries, but these make up a very small portion of rivers. When the western states were being divided, there was a bit of public support for placing major rivers in the center of states instead to encourage riverine city and commercial development, but these petitions ultimately failed to convince Congress.
Mountain ranges as natural barriers are also difficult to use as state lines. It would be enormously difficult to survey a mountain range from peak to peak and cleft to cleft in all kinds of weather, even with modern technology. In the 1890s, scientist and explorer John Wesley Powell recommended state and county lines be drawn according to river basins, which are far less changeable over time than rivers, and also prioritize natural boundaries over geometric lines. There were many limitations with his plan for law enforcement and land ownership, and his suggestions came after the continental US had been divided up; therefore, it was too late to practically consider implementing Powell’s proposal.
Congress attempted to create equality between states, drawing lines in order for states to share access to water, agriculture, and maintain relative equality of size. States that are far larger than others, such as California, Texas, and Alaska, are states that created themselves. When Congress asked California and Texas to readjust their borders after admittance to the Union, few borders were actually altered, and the economic benefit of these states being part of the US outweighed the high risk of alienating them to preserve boundary equality.
Slavery was another integral piece of boundary making. To maintain an uneasy peace in the years leading up to the Civil War, the North and South would admit a slave-owning state when they would add a free state. This tit-for-tat division influenced the border placement of many states near the 36th and 37th parallels.
Even as new territories and states were in the offing, the US Congress had an eye on the future. Congress placed an emphasis on intentional planning, allowing for and encouraging the explosive growth in the West. The tapestry of our nation could very well have been checkered with states of different sizes, shapes, and names from what exist today, if it hadn’t been for the vision of equity and symmetry championed by our Enlightenment thinkers.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this piece next week, which will explore the reasons behind Colorado’s borders, and how they have changed over time!
[1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 11.
References
Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.
American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.
“Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect
Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.
Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.
Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.
Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.
Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.
Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.
History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.
History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.
History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.
Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.
“Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.
Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.
Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.
Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.
Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).
Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.
The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.
Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.
www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.
Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.
Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.
Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.
by Jery Payne and Patti Dahlberg
It was a great stakeholder meeting. The stakeholders arrived prepared and ready to negotiate. The discussion was respectful, weighing the pros and cons of the policy alternatives. Because the discussion was good and the meeting was ebbing, I looked forward to the legislator and stakeholders settling on a policy. So you can imagine my surprise when the legislator looked over to me and said, “Do you have everything you need to draft this legislation?”
After I cleaned up the coffee, I replied, “Well, I think you have a few decisions to make.”[1]
What Are the Basics?
So what does your drafter need to know to begin drafting your bill? The answer is, “It depends!”
Helpful? Yep, that’s so helpful. If you’re not convinced, here are a few guidelines to help fill in the necessary details:
Now where was I? Oh yeah:
If you don’t have all these details figured out, it’s okay to give the drafter what you do have and then talk with your drafter to work out the rest. By the way, this is one of the reasons why submitting the bill request a bit earlier is a good idea: It gives you time to have these discussions with the drafter.
Other Helpful Information to Tell Your Drafter
In addition to these basic requirements, let your drafter know about any of the following:
The drafter usually discovers additional decision points while they are drafting the bill. A great example is when your policy conflicts with something in current statutes. Your drafter will contact you to discuss these issues.
Procedural Questions You’ll Need to Answer Before Introduction
Before your bill is introduced, procedural questions need answers, such as:
For more detailed information on these questions and potential answers, see How Would You Like Your Bill? Questions a Bill Sponsor Must Decide.
[1] Although this precise scenario hasn’t happened to me yet, I’ve been in many meetings that aren’t far from this scenario in different ways.