Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • The New Legislative Information Resource Center at the State Capitol is Open!

    by Darren Thornberry

    Picture of the new library space, featuring a work table and wooden shelving, a ladder, and research books.The Colorado General Assembly is back in session and with it comes the opening of the dazzling new Legislative Council Resource Center. The remodeled space in the basement of the Capitol building consists of the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) front reception, the legislative library, and offices for up to four staff members.

    Yes, the legislative library is still here! LCS staff maintain library services, including access to statutes, session laws, journals, and recordings of legislative hearings, and the office is open to all legislative staff and the public for legislative research.

    The renovation of the space that was formerly the legislative library had two purposes: First, renovating the library space allowed LCS to consolidate two front-Another angle of the newly renovated library facing offices–the Joint Legislative Library and the LCS front office—to serve both purposes in one space. Now there is a streamlined entrance to LCS staff offices, and a single place for legislators and the public to access legislative resources and LCS staff. The second purpose was to renovate existing LCS office space to house the Office of Legislative Workplace Relations, which is now located in Room 026 in the north end of the Capitol basement.

    A key renovation goal was to restore the space to the Capitol’s “Period of Significance,” which was established as 1904, when the Dome was first gilded with gold. A unique find during construction was a gallery/hallway similar to the open gallery that is on the 1st Floor directly above the renovated space.

    The new Legislative Information Resource Center, located at the foot of the Capitol’s Grand Staircase in the basement, is a comfortable resource area for members of the legislature, legislative staff, and the public to easily access legislative resources and LCS staff.

    Left to Right: Legislative Council’s Elizabeth Haskell, Elizabeth Burger, and Juanita Hill

    L-R: Legislative Council’s Elizabeth Haskell, Elizabeth Burger, and Juanita Hill

    Presently, because of the pandemic, members of the public are asked to call 303.866.3521 to make an appointment to use the library resources.

  • CCUSL Moves Several Uniform Acts Forward for Introduction

    by Patti Dahlberg and Thomas Morris

    The Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws (CCUSL) is Colorado’s delegation to the national Uniform Law Commission (ULC). The ULC is comprised of more than 300 commissioners appointed by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The CCUSL meets each year during the ULC’s annual conference in July to identify a preliminary legislative agenda of approved uniform acts for potential introduction in Colorado. The CCUSL then typically hosts two or three public meetings at the state capitol to discuss its proposed legislation, listen to interested parties, and finalize its legislative agenda. The CCUSL sends advance notice of the meetings held in the capitol to interested parties, posts meeting information on the General Assembly and the CCUSL websites, encourages public testimony at the meetings, and broadcasts the meetings over the internet.

    The CCUSL held meetings to discuss its legislative agenda on September 18, 2020, and December 16, 2020, and approved eight uniform acts for introduction as commission bills during the 2021 legislative session. The links to the acts provided below are to the ULC version of the uniform acts (unless identified with a bill number), and uniform acts are routinely amended prior to introduction. Links to the Colorado versions of uniform acts will be available on the CCUSL Additional Information page as the bills are introduced. One of the uniform acts approved for introduction was a ULC act newly approved at the 2020 annual meeting and the other seven uniform acts were ULC-approved acts from prior years, a couple of which were introduced during the 2020 legislative session but were sidelined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and shortened legislative session. The eight uniform acts approved for introduction in 2021 in Colorado are:

    • Uniform Electronic Wills Act (UEWA).  Most documents traditionally printed on paper can be created, transferred, signed, and recorded in electronic form. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and a similar federal law, E-SIGN, provide that a transaction is not invalid solely because the terms of the contract are in an electronic format. But UETA and E-SIGN both contain an express exception for wills, which, because the testator is deceased at the time the document must be interpreted, are subject to special execution requirements to ensure validity and must still be executed on paper in most states. Under the UEWA, the testator’s electronic signature must be witnessed at signing (or notarized simultaneously in states that allow notarized wills) and the document must be stored in a tamper-evident file. States will have the option to include language that allows remote witnessing and the act addresses recognition of electronic wills executed under the law of another state. For a generation that is used to banking, communicating, and transacting business online, this act will allow online estate planning while maintaining safeguards to help prevent fraud and coercion. The Colorado General Assembly enacted the Colorado Uniform Electronic Wills Act (HB21-1004) during the first three days of the 2021 legislative session.
    • Uniform Easement Relocation Act (UERA). An access easement gives the owner of one parcel of real estate the legal authority to travel across another person’s property. Think of a driveway that runs from a public road across one property to access another. In many, but not all, states, the owners of both properties must consent to relocate an easement. When the owner of the burdened property asks to relocate an access easement to allow further development, an easement holder in a state that follows the mutual consent rule can withhold consent to prevent the development or demand a ransom payment before agreeing to the change. The UERA allows the burdened estate owner to obtain a court order to relocate an easement if the relocation does not materially impair the utility of the easement to the easement holder or the physical condition, use, or value of the benefited property. The burdened property owner must file a civil action, give other potentially affected real-property interest owners notice, and bear all the costs of relocation. These conditions build upon the rule contained in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, whose approach to easement relocation has been fully or partially adopted in a number of states. The act excludes conservation easements and public-utility easements from its scope and contains a number of additional safeguards, not found in the Restatement, to protect the easement holder’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the easement during and after the relocation.
    • 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. Reflecting the friendship between the United States and Canada, citizens move freely between the two countries, freedom that in certain limited circumstances can work against victims of domestic violence. Canada has granted recognition to protection orders issued in the United States and other countries in the Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. By this act, enacting states accord similar recognition to protection orders issued in Canada.
    • Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (UFIPA). This act is a revision of the former Uniform Principal and Income Act with a new name to differentiate it from predecessor versions. While older trusts often had clear delineation between income and principal interests, modern trust accounting requires flexibility. Trustees now tend to invest for the greatest total return and then adjust between interest and principal to produce a fair result for all the beneficiaries. UFIPA recognizes this trend toward total-return investing and includes unitrust conversion rules to allow even older trusts to take advantage of modern investment trends. UFIPA gives estate planning attorneys additional flexibility to tailor a trust for each client’s needs and includes a new governing law section to help avoid jurisdictional disputes.
    • Uniform Trust Code, Part Five. The Uniform Trust Code (2000) was the first national codification of the law of trusts. In 2018, after significant review of the uniform act by the legal community and with some amendments, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Colorado Trust Code (SB18-180), deliberately leaving part five out to allow for additional review. The Colorado Bar Association has completed its additional review of part five and suggested amendments, and part five is ready to be considered for inclusion in the Colorado Trust Code.
    • Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act. Automated and partially automated vehicles are already on the roads; this act reconciles automated driving with a typical state motor vehicle code. Many of the act’s sections – including definitions, driver licensing, vehicle registration, equipment, and rules of the road – correspond to, refer to, and can be incorporated into existing sections of a typical vehicle code. This act also introduces the concept of automated driving providers (ADPs) as a legal entity that must declare itself to the state and designate the automated vehicles for which it will act as the legal driver when the vehicle is in automated operation. The ADP might be an automated driving system developer, a vehicle manufacturer, a fleet operator, or another kind of market participant that has yet to emerge. The act uses the motor vehicle registration framework that already exists in states and applies it to both conventional and automated vehicles. By using an existing framework, the act also seeks to respect and empower state motor vehicle agencies.
    • Uniform Collaborative Law. This act provides attorneys guidance in determining whether collaborative law is appropriate for a particular dispute or client. As a uniform state law, the act helps establish uniformity in core procedures and consumer protections, while minimizing the patchwork spread of varying approaches and definitions. The collaborative law process provides lawyers and clients with an important, useful, and cost-effective option for amicable, non-adversarial dispute resolution. Like mediation, it promotes problem-solving and permits solutions not possible in litigation or arbitration. Collaborative law is a voluntary process in which clients and their lawyers agree that the lawyers will represent the clients solely for purposes of settlement, and that the clients will hire new counsel if the case does not settle. The parties and their lawyers work together to find an equitable resolution of the dispute at hand, retaining experts as necessary. No one is required to participate, and parties are free to terminate the process at any time.
    • Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act (RUAAA). As a 2015 update to the 2000 Uniform Athlete Agents Act (enacted in 42 states, including Colorado), the RUAAA updated the 2000 act to expand some definitions, provide for reciprocal registration between states, add new requirements to the signing of an agency contract, and expand notification requirements. The 2019 Amendment to the Uniform Athlete Agents Act responds to the 2018 changes made to the NCAA bylaws to provide student athletes with more freedom and flexibility to explore the possibility of going professional while retaining their college eligibility. Under the new NCAA bylaws, certified sports agents can cover limited expenses of a prospective or enrolled student athlete and the athlete’s family for meals, hotel, and travel in connection with the agent selection process. Because the NCAA bylaw changes conflicted with the Athlete Agents Acts, the NCAA asked the ULC to amend the two Uniform Athlete Agents Acts so they will not conflict with the bylaw changes. The Section 14 amendment was drafted to clear up the conflict; it was also drafted so that it applies beyond the current bylaws to ensure that the ULC will not have to go to state legislatures every time the NCAA broadens its bylaws. The amendment includes appropriate safeguards so that it applies only if the NCAA makes further changes.

    For more information concerning the ULC and CCUSL, check out these articles:

  • Nonpartisan OLLS Staff Help With More Than Just Bill Drafting

    by Sharon Eubanks

    Although the 2021 legislative session is just now under way again, legislators have already been interacting with the staff of the Office of Legislative Legal Services for their bill and amendment requests, although on a more remote basis. While the pandemic is impacting the manner in which we interact with legislators for the time being, it does not impact what we can do for legislators. The Legislative Legal Services staff, comprised of attorneys and other professional staff, provides a variety of written materials and services to legislators in addition to their bill and amendment drafting needs.  We encourage legislators to learn more about and make full use of the products and services we can provide.  Please visit our web page.

    Legislative Legal Services is the General Assembly’s nonpartisan legal staff agency. Nonpartisanship provides the foundation for how we serve the General Assembly through our interactions with legislators, partisan staff, agency officials, lobbyists, and the public. Legislative Legal Services aims to serve all legislators fairly and impartially, regardless of party or rank, and to ensure our work is objective, balanced, and accessible.

    As legislative lawyers, we maintain an attorney-client relationship with the General Assembly, as an institution, and not with each legislator. Therefore, we are obligated to serve the best interests of the institutional client, the General Assembly, as distinguished from the individual interests of any legislator. However, when working individually with legislators, we are statutorily bound to maintain the confidentiality of all bill and amendment requests before introduction, and we are ethically bound to maintain the confidentiality of the communications we have with each legislator, as a constituent of the institution.

    In addition to our primary function of drafting bills, resolutions, and amendments, the Legislative Legal Services staff, upon request, can provide legislators with written materials to help them understand Colorado law and what other states are doing to address various issues and to help them explain their bills. Due to time constraints created by bill and amendment drafting demands, which are our first priority during the legislative session, our staff may not always be able to respond immediately to every legislator’s request. But we do our best to provide the requested materials as soon as practicable, time permitting, and on a first-come, first-served basis. Examples of ancillary materials available upon request include:

    • More-detailed, written explanations of bills;
    • Summaries of changes made to a bill in committee, in the first house, or in the second house;
    • Tables comparing bill provisions;
    • Explanations of state or federal statutes;
    • Summaries of case law relevant to a bill;
    • Summaries of case law interpreting a particular statute or issue;
    • Legislative histories of issues or bills;
    • Legislative histories of constitutional or statutory provisions;
    • Comparisons of Colorado law with the law of other states on particular issues; and
    • Lists of all Colorado statutes addressing an issue.

    Our office also provides written legal opinions, including written legal opinions on issues relating to pending legislation. We hold legal opinion requests in strictest confidence. We will not release a written memorandum to other persons without the permission of the legislator who requested it. But we will give the same answer if another legislator asks us the same question, which will result in identical legal opinions for different legislators.

    There are some limitations on the materials and services we can provide to legislators due to our role as nonpartisan legislative staff. Examples of the documents and tasks that Legislative Legal Services staff cannot provide include:

    • Voting records on an issue or bill;
    • Talking points advocating for or opposing a policy position;
    • Conveying messages that encourage a legislator to vote for a bill or discourage a legislator from voting for a bill;
    • Soliciting legislators as joint prime sponsors, cosponsors, or second house sponsors;
    • Violating confidentiality, e.g., telling a legislator about amendments prepared for other legislators to his or her bill, telling a legislator what another legislator said or told others about the legislator’s bill, or telling a legislator what legal advice our office gave another legislator;
    • Assisting a legislator in counting votes; and
    • Advocating for passage or defeat of legislation on policy or any other grounds.

    These lists illustrate the materials or services we can and cannot provide, but they are not exhaustive. If a legislator has a request for materials or assistance, please ask us. If it’s something we can provide, we will do so.

    The Legislative Legal Services staff is ready to provide the services and support necessary to help the members of the Seventy-third General Assembly have a productive and successful legislative session in 2021. Whether by phone, video meeting, or an in-person visit to our main office in Room 091 on the ground floor of the Capitol, we encourage legislators to utilize the Legislative Legal Services staff for all their legislative needs, not just for bill and amendment drafting.

    Also, for your convenience, you can access the schedule of all of the deadlines established by the Executive Committee for the 2021 legislative session at https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021_session_jr_44_executive_committee_full_deadlines_schedule.pdf. Since Rule 44 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives was amended at the beginning of the 2021 session, legislative days are now counted consecutively unless the General Assembly temporarily adjourns again for more than three days. The 120th legislative day is currently anticipated to be June 12, 2021, which is the deadline for the General Assembly to adjourn sine die.

  • Constituent Services: Here to Help!

    by Ashley Athey

    Members of the General Assembly, as elected officials representing their respective districts, often receive a number of phone calls, emails, and, at least pre-COVID, in-person requests, questions, comments, and more from their constituents. While office staff help field the initial calls and emails, sometimes constituent requests and questions require a little more research.

    That’s where the Constituent Services Unit of the Legislative Council comes in. They assist members of the General Assembly by providing information to respond to constituent requests. The Constituent Services staff strive to provide quick responses that are short, accurate, objective, and understandable to the constituent. Either a member or the member’s legislative aide, intern, or volunteer may submit a request. Responses may come from the Legislative Council Staff or from an appropriate person in federal, state, or local government.

    Constituent Services staff help with almost any type of constituent request, including requests related to:

    • Current state law or legislation pending before the General Assembly;
    • Operations and services of state government;
    • Federal and local government activity/federal law;
    • State issues, e.g., water, environment, tourism, the economy; and
    • Legislative Council “products” — fiscal notes, economic forecasts, issue briefs.

    The manner in which Constituent Services staff responds varies. They may:

    • Navigate the constituent to the right person in a state agency who can address the constituent’s concern;
    • Connect the constituent with the proper level of government to address the constituent’s concern;
    • Provide information about current law, pending legislation, or state policies;
    • Help someone better understand the law;
    • Directly help resolve the problem (e.g., getting a tax refund or getting a driver’s license ); or
    • Simply listen and acknowledge the concern.

    There are, however, some requests that Constituent Services staff cannot assist with, such as requests for:

    • Voting, attendance, and financial records;
    • Partisan research;
    • Press releases;
    • Legal opinions;
    • Opinion/position papers; or
    • District surveys.

    Only members of the General Assembly or a member’s legislative staff may submit a constituent request to Constituent Services.  A request may be initiated by telephone, fax, email, in writing, or in person.

    Elizabeth Haskell is the Manager of Constituent Services and can be reached at 303-866-6264 or by email. Requests may be submitted to the constituent services staff through email, by phone call, or in person at the Resource Center located at the foot of the main stairs on the ground floor of the State Capitol.

  • Do-overs in the Legislative Process

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Editor’s note: This is the sixth in a series of articles on the legislative rules that LegiSource is reposting during 2020-2021. This article was originally posted April 8, 2016, and has been edited as appropriate.

    A recent LegiSource article explained the rules for reconsideration that allow a committee of reference or the House or the Senate to reconsider the vote taken on a motion. But there are other routes a legislator may take to get a committee or the House or the Senate to take a second look at a bill or amendment.

    Amendments to the Committee of the Whole Report
    The most commonly used process for changing an action is an amendment to the committee of the whole report. Of course, this process only applies to actions taken on second reading in the House or the Senate.

    The second reading of bills is a two-step process. First, the House or the Senate passes a motion to sit as the committee of the whole. Considering bills as a committee that includes all of the Representatives or Senators allows the legislators to act under different rules than would apply if they were taking action formally as the House or the Senate. For example, while acting as the committee of the whole, debate cannot be limited, motions cannot be reconsidered, a decision of the chair of the committee of the whole cannot be challenged, and votes are not recorded.

    The committee of the whole adopts or rejects committee of reference reports and floor amendments to bills, generally debates the bills, and finally adopts, rejects, or refers each bill on a voice or standing vote. Once the committee of the whole has considered all of the bills on the calendar, or as many as it has time for, the majority leader moves that the committee of the whole “rise and report.”

    At this point, the House goes back to doing business as the House and the Senate goes back to doing business as the Senate, because they cannot complete the second reading process without a formal, recorded vote on the bills. This vote occurs when the House or the Senate votes on the committee of the whole report, which includes all of the amendments the committee adopted and all of the bills the committee considered. And, like any other committee report, the report of the committee of the whole can be amended.

    A legislator may offer an amendment to the committee of the whole report to change any action that the committee took – for example, to say that an amendment or bill that the committee passed, did not pass; or an amendment or bill that the committee rejected, did pass. All votes on amendments to the committee of the whole report are recorded. Once it has considered all amendments to the report, the House or the Senate finishes second reading by adopting or rejecting the entire committee of the whole report, as amended if any amendments passed.

    Under the Senate rules, a Senator can offer an amendment to the committee of the whole report to show that an amendment that was not offered in the committee of the whole did pass. Under the House rules, the committee must have actually considered an amendment for it to be the subject of an amendment to the committee of the whole report.

    Why would the House or the Senate adopt an amendment to the committee of the whole report to change something it just did? Since the votes taken in the committee of the whole are not recorded, a legislator may want an official count of the number of legislators voting for or against an amendment or a bill. Also, in the committee of the whole an amendment or bill passes with the approval of a majority of those present and voting. An amendment to the committee of the whole report and final adoption of the report requires the approval of a majority of those elected to the body: 33 in the House and 18 in the Senate.

    Referring bills from 2nd reading back to a committee of reference
    Sometimes, while debating a bill in the committee of the whole, a member will argue that a particular amendment under debate is so technical or substantive that it requires consideration by a committee of reference whose members have special expertise in the subject area. Or the committee of the whole may adopt an amendment that changes the fiscal impact of the bill. In this case, a legislator may move to refer the bill back to a committee of reference – usually the committee that originally considered the bill or the appropriations committee.

    Usually, a bill will be referred back to a committee before it is amended by the committee of the whole, but sometimes the committee of the whole will have already adopted the committee of reference report or other amendments. It is up to the legislators to decide whether the bill is referred back to the committee of reference unamended or as amended by the committee of the whole. In either case, the committee of reference may adopt a second committee of reference report that further amends the bill or changes the amendments adopted by the first committee of reference.

    Referring bills from 3rd reading back to 2nd reading in the House or to a committee of reference in the House or the Senate
    Under House rules, if a member tries to offer a substantive amendment to a bill on third reading, the proper motion is to refer the bill back to second reading for consideration of the substantive amendment. When the committee of the whole considers the bill this time, it will be considering the bill as introduced in the House with any amendments adopted on second reading enrolled into the bill – the engrossed version if it’s a House bill or the revised version if it’s a Senate bill. If the committee of the whole amends the bill on the second consideration, there will be a second engrossed or revised version of the bill.

    At the third reading stage, the House or Senate may also vote to refer the bill back to a committee of reference. In this case, the committee of reference will consider the engrossed or revised version and any amendments that the committee of reference adopts will be to the engrossed or revised version. The committee of reference may then move the bill to the committee of the whole for consideration on second reading – again. But the committee of reference cannot move the bill directly to third reading because House Rule 25 (j)(3) and Senate Rule 22 (f) only allow a committee of reference to refer a bill to another committee of reference or to the committee of the whole or to postpone the bill indefinitely.

  • Addition by Division or How to Create a Judicial District in Colorado

    by Conrad Imel

    Recently, the General Assembly created a twenty-third judicial district in Colorado. But can the General Assembly just make a new judicial district? Even though the judicial department is a separate branch of the government, the state constitution says it can. In this article we’ll look at the General Assembly’s role in creating and changing judicial districts and the recent change that it made.

    Judicial districts are responsible for operating district courts within the district.[1] District courts are the courts of general jurisdiction in Colorado. They hear civil cases involving any dollar amount, criminal matters, and domestic relations cases. District courts also hear cases involving probate and minors, such as adoption, dependency and neglect, and juvenile delinquency; except in Denver, which has a separate probate court and juvenile court to handle these cases.

    Judicial districts weren’t created by the legislature to administer courts; they are required by the state constitution. Article VI, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution declares that “[t]he state shall be divided into judicial districts” and authorizes the General Assembly to change the number and boundaries of judicial districts with a two-thirds vote of the members of each chamber. Presently, state courts are divided into 22 judicial districts. Some districts contain multiple counties while others consist of a single county. Click here to see a map of Colorado’s judicial districts.

    Colorado’s constitution initially provided for four judicial districts with one judge each. Five years later, in 1881, the General Assembly added three new judicial districts, bringing the total number of districts to seven. The General Assembly regularly increased the number of judicial districts over the next 82 years, culminating with the creation of the 22nd Judicial District in 1963. It wouldn’t add another district for nearly 60 years.

    In 2020, the General Assembly passed House Bill 20-1026, creating a twenty-third judicial district that will begin operations on January 7, 2025. Currently, the 18th Judicial District consists of Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties. Beginning in 2025, three of the four counties, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln, will leave the 18th Judicial District and become the new 23rd Judicial District, served by eight judges. HB 20-1026 decreases the number of judges in the 18th Judicial District by seven, from 24 to 17. The bill easily satisfied the constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement, receiving just two “no” votes in the House and one in the Senate.

    For a legislator, creating a new judicial district isn’t as simple as sponsoring a bill and getting two-thirds of your colleagues to agree to it. The state constitution includes a few requirements for judicial districts and judges that the bill sponsor (and bill drafter!) need to keep in mind. First, article VI, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution requires that each judicial district have an elected district attorney, and section 1-4-204, C.R.S., provides that district attorneys are elected at a general election (held in even-numbered years). Any bill establishing a new judicial district will need to account for a district attorney election and the time it takes the newly elected district attorney to assume the office.

    Additionally, the Colorado Constitution requires a district judge to reside in the judicial district in which the judge serves and prohibits abolishing a judge’s office until the end of the judge’s term. A judge may be required to change districts, though, so long as the judge resides in the new district. To comply with these constitutional provisions and ensure that both the new and continuing judicial districts have the proper number of judges who reside in their respective districts, the bill sponsor needs to carefully consider the date the new district will begin operations and account for where the judges of the existing district reside.

    It may not happen as often as it used to, but as long as two-thirds of the members agree, the General Assembly can change the state’s judicial districts. Even if the legislature waits another 50 years to do it again, it will need to be mindful of when the new district begins operations to avoid any constitutional issues.

     

    [1] Judicial districts also operate county courts, except for Denver County Court, which is operated by the City and County of Denver and is, in effect, a combined municipal and county court.

  • The Four Ws and One H of Reconsideration of a Previous Vote

    by Sharon Eubanks

    Editor’s note: This is the fifth in a series of articles on the legislative rules that LegiSource is reposting during 2020-2021. This article was originally posted April 11, 2016, and has been edited as appropriate.

    The definition of “reconsider” pretty much sums up what reconsideration is all about – “to consider again, especially with a view to change a decision or action.” In the legislative arena, “reconsideration” is the mechanism in the rules that enables a committee of reference or the House or the Senate to consider changing an action it has already taken.

    A legislative body has a right to reconsider a vote on an action previously taken by the body, subject to certain limits. When a body reconsiders its vote, that original vote is canceled completely, as though it had never been taken, and the body immediately votes again upon the question reconsidered.

    Closely related to reconsideration is giving notice of intent to reconsider, which provides notice of a member’s intent to reconsider, at some point in the future, a prior vote on an action. The effect of giving notice of intent to reconsider is to suspend all action on the subject of the motion until either the reconsideration is acted on or the time to act on the reconsideration has expired. However, giving notice of intent to reconsider does not necessarily mean that reconsideration will actually occur.

    Senate Rule 18 and House Rule 35 govern reconsideration and notice of intent to reconsider in Colorado legislative proceedings on the floor and in committees of reference.

    What can be reconsidered? Any action that the House or Senate takes when conducting business as a body and any action that a House or Senate committee of reference takes may be reconsidered by the acting body. But reconsideration is not allowed for an action that the House takes while sitting as the Committee of the Whole (COW).

    The Senate does not have a similar rule expressly prohibiting reconsideration of an action of the COW, but there are some practical problems in applying the reconsideration rules when the Senate is sitting as the COW. For example, how would the chair determine if the person moving for reconsideration voted on the “prevailing side” (see explanation of who can request reconsideration, below) when votes in the COW are taken viva voce? However, at least once recently, a Senator made a motion to reconsider an action of the COW and the motion was considered without objection. Nonetheless, generally it has been the Senate’s practice to not permit reconsideration during the COW.

    Who can request reconsideration?  In both the House and the Senate, only a member who voted on the prevailing side of an action, whether taken on the floor or in committee, may make a motion to reconsider that action. Sometimes a member will switch his or her vote at the last moment to the prevailing side to preserve the option of subsequently moving to reconsider the action.

    Only a House member who has voted on the prevailing side of an action of the House may give notice of intent to reconsider that action. And, while only a Senator who voted on the prevailing side may give notice of intent to reconsider a committee action, any Senator, regardless of how he or she voted, may give notice of intent to reconsider an action of the Senate.

    How does reconsideration occur? Reconsideration occurs after a member makes a motion to reconsider a House or Senate floor or committee action and the motion is approved. In the Senate, a majority of the members elected to the Senate or a majority of the members of a committee of reference, whichever body took the action at issue, must approve the motion to reconsider. In the House, two-thirds of the members elected to the House or two-thirds of the members of a House committee, as applicable, must approve a motion to reconsider unless a member makes the motion during the last two days of session. In that situation, only a majority of members must approve a motion to reconsider.

    To prevent the abuse of motions to reconsider, if a motion to reconsider is lost or, upon reconsideration, the original action is affirmed, the same Senate action cannot be reconsidered a second time unless the motion is approved by unanimous consent of the Senate or a Senate committee, as appropriate. If a motion to reconsider is defeated or the original action is affirmed by the House or a House committee, no further motion to reconsider the same action is allowed.

    Senate members of committees of reference may give notice of intent to reconsider. In this case, the measure affected by the notice must be held until the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. But giving notice to reconsider is out of order if holding the measure will cause it to miss a deadline for passage out of committee and the deadline isn’t extended. In contrast, members of House committees of reference cannot give notice of intent to reconsider a committee action.

    When can reconsideration occur? A member must make a motion to reconsider an action of a House or Senate committee either at the meeting at which the action is taken or at the next meeting of the committee.

    A Senator must make a motion to reconsider, or give notice of intent to reconsider, an action of the Senate on the same day that the action is taken or on either of the next two days of actual session. A Representative must make a motion to reconsider, or give notice of intent to reconsider, an action of the House before adjournment of the legislative day on which the action is taken.  If notice is timely given, the House member then has until noon on the next day of actual session to make a motion to reconsider the action.

    But, it’s important to remember that a body can reconsider an action only if the measure on which the action was taken is still before the body and the action is still capable of being changed. So, a committee member can’t make a motion to reconsider a committee action on a measure if the committee report has already been signed by the chair and delivered to the House or Senate front desk. And a member can’t move to reconsider a third reading vote if the measure has already been introduced in the second house or delivered to and acted upon by the Governor.

    A Senator’s motion to reconsider the action taken on a measure already transmitted to the House, but not yet introduced, must be accompanied by a motion asking the House to return the measure to the Senate. If a House member makes a motion to reconsider, the chief clerk of the House is directed to request the return of the relevant measure if it has already been transmitted to the Senate or the Governor. But if the measure’s been introduced in the Senate or acted upon by the Governor, the measure can’t be returned to the House.

    Why would someone request reconsideration? In many situations, a motion to reconsider is used when a member, for whatever reason, doesn’t vote the way he or she intended to vote or a member is absent during the recorded vote on a measure. With reconsideration, the original vote is wiped away and replaced with the second vote. When controversial issues and close votes are involved, a motion to immediately reconsider a vote can be used to lock in that vote since unanimous consent is required for a subsequent motion to reconsider after the first motion to reconsider is lost or, upon reconsideration, the original action is affirmed. On the flip side, giving notice of intent to reconsider a vote can be used as a delay tactic to slow a measure’s progress through the legislative process or to allow time to try to convince enough members to change their votes and thereby change the action taken. Once notice is given, all action on a measure is suspended and the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Clerk of the House, as applicable, holds the measure until the time for reconsideration has expired. In the Senate, giving notice of intent to reconsider can be used to delay a floor action up to three days and a committee action until the conclusion of the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. Giving notice of intent to reconsider can delay an action taken by the House until noon on the next day of actual session after the action is taken.

    For more information on reconsideration, check out the September 29, 2011, Legisource article, which discusses actual legislative situations that involved reconsideration.

  • Legislative Ethics – Conflict of Interest

    “A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the general assembly, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.” Article V, section 43 of the Colorado Constitution, effective August 1, 1876.

    Legislative ethics principles have been included in the state’s constitution and been an integral part of legislative proceedings from the earliest days of statehood. The legislature expanded on these ethical principles and codified the standard of conduct expected for all persons involved with government in House Bill 88-1209. The ethical principles specific to the General Assembly listed in the bill and now codified as section 24-18-107, C.R.S., provide guidance to legislators when determining whether a conflict of interest exists and instructions on disclosing such an interest according to the applicable chamber’s rules.  It also states that a failure to disclose does not constitute a breach of the public trust of legislative office.

    According to Joint Rule 42, a legislator is considered to have a personal, private, or financial interest in a pending bill, measure, or question if the passage or failure of the legislation will result in the legislator deriving a direct financial or pecuniary benefit that is greater than any benefit derived by or shared by other persons in the legislator’s profession, occupation, industry, or region. Joint Rule 42, like section 24-18-107, C.R.S., provides that a legislator is not considered to have such an interest in legislation if the interest arises from legislation affecting the entire membership of a class to which the legislator belongs. House Rule 21(c), and Senate Rules 17(c) and 41 discuss voting, disclosing, and excusing oneself from a vote.

    Seems easy enough. Here are some hypothetical situations for your consideration:

    Situation #1. The General Assembly is considering a bill that would provide comprehensive state assistance to promote biotechnological research within the state as well as related commercial applications. The assistance includes tax benefits, the establishment of a special state fund, and a new grant program. You are a member of the General Assembly and your spouse is a well-known and well-recognized research scientist who heads a special institute for biotechnological research at one of our state’s leading research universities. The bill would direct state financial assistance to a variety of public and private entities, but significant resources would be particularly directed to the institute headed by your spouse. It is likely the benefits from the bill would increase the institute’s budget and your spouse’s national profile and income.

    May you vote on the legislation?  

    1. Since the legislation only benefits your spouse, there is no problem voting on the legislation.
    2. With sluggish economic growth, the legislation is vital for creating jobs and members need to put aside their private qualms about ethics and enact good programs.
    3. The legislation would appear to distribute benefits to many private and public entities across the state. You can vote on the legislation because all persons with an interest in the legislation amount to one big class of persons.
    4. By virtue of your spouse’s position, you have a personal, private, or financial interest in the legislation necessitating your abstention from voting on the bill.

    The correct answer is 4. Under Joint Rule 42, the relevant inquiry is whether you, as a member, will benefit from or be disadvantaged by the legislation more than any other member of your profession, occupation, industry, or region. Because of the special position your spouse holds and the extra benefits that the bill directs to the institute generally and to your spouse more specifically, there is a reasonable likelihood that your immediate household will benefit from the legislation more than others in your profession, occupation, industry, or region. This gives you a personal, private, or financial interest in the legislation necessitating your abstention from voting on the bill.

    Situation #2. You are the owner of several apartment buildings and other rental properties in your community. A bill has been introduced that would lengthen the period of time available to a tenant to pay past-due rent.

    May you vote on the legislation?

    1. YES. But only if you vote “for” the bill. Since the bill favors tenants and you are a property owner, no one would think it improper for you to support the bill.
    2. YES. Because the governing legal requirements specify that a conflict of interest situation does not arise from legislation affecting the entire membership of a class. Here, the relevant class is the entire group of rental property owners across the state. Because you are a member of this class, you do not have an improper conflict-of-interest situation and, accordingly, may vote on the legislation.
    3. NO. Because landlords are so distrusted in the community, it would be better to abstain than to call public attention to your outside real estate interests.
    4. NO. Existing law already affords tenants sufficient time within which to cure any default.

    The correct answer is 2. Section 24-18-107 (3), C.R.S., and Joint Rule 42 explicitly state that a conflict-of-interest situation does not arise from legislation that affects the entire membership of a class. Under this same principle, teachers who are members of the General Assembly may vote on education bills and attorneys who are members of the General Assembly may vote on bills affecting tort liability and evidentiary matters. Here, the relevant class is the entire group of rental property owners across the state. Assuming you will not benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, the legislation any more than any other owner of these properties statewide, an improper conflict-of-interest situation is not present. You would be permitted to vote on the legislation.

     See also “Reducing Conflicts Over Conflicts (of Interest)”, posted April 27, 2017.

    Click here for other LegiSource articles regarding ethics.

  • One Thing’s for Certain – Things are Uncertain

    by Patti Dahlberg

    The Executive Committee of the Legislative Council sent out a joint release on December 21, 2020, announcing the plan to delay the 2021 legislative session due to safety concerns. The state is still under a declared statewide public health disaster emergency order, and the December COVID infection numbers are expected to remain high into January. According to the release, the plan is for the 73rd General Assembly to convene on Wednesday, January 13, as required by the Colorado Constitution and take care of any necessary business, including the swearing in of newly elected legislators. The General Assembly will then temporarily adjourn until, tentatively, mid-February when, hopefully, COVID infection rates will be lower and legislative work can continue in a more normal manner.

    What does this mean for legislators?

    No one really knows for sure. Last session, the General Assembly temporarily adjourned for six weeks only to reconvene long enough to take care of the state’s budget and other miscellaneous bills that were considered necessary. Many bills introduced as part of the normal legislative session or that had substantial fiscal impacts were “Postponed Indefinitely” or “Deemed Lost” by the end of the 2020 session. The General Assembly had to drastically shift gears upon reconvening to prioritize the passage of the budget-balancing bills needed to adjust for the revised forecasts of significant revenue loss and balance the state’s budget.

    This year is a little different in that the legislative session has not yet started, and legislators should have a better idea of the budget they will be working with for the 2021-22 fiscal year, hopefully eliminating unpleasant budget issues halfway through session. In addition, the General Assembly convened for a special legislative session in early December to pass legislation deemed necessary to help the state and its citizens weather the economic hardships of the pandemic. Having provided some relief with these bills, legislators may now have the opportunity to consider other needed legislation.

    Also, this year the temporary adjournment will be at the beginning of session. This allows the Executive Committee to adjust deadlines and clarify expectations for the bulk of the legislative session.

    Although the December bill request deadlines are behind us, there is still time for legislators who have not yet requested their last two bills to submit those requests by the Tuesday, January 19 bill request deadline. Because of the delayed start, all of the filing dates for bills have been delayed until later in the year. The Executive Committee of the Legislative Council issued a joint letter on Wednesday, December 23, 2020, explaining the new filing and introduction deadlines. The new filing deadlines are:

    Although the deadlines have been delayed, legislators still need to designate the order in which they would like their bills introduced. To be able to introduce all of the five bills allowed by rule, a legislator needs to choose one bill to be the first bill introduced, two bills to designate as early bills, and two bills to designate as regular bills. The bills, as designated, need to meet the applicable filing dates.

    This session, the plan is to have all the prefile (or first) bills and the early bills filed before the session reconvenes and ready to be introduced (read across the desk) on the first day back in session (tentatively February 16). The bills will be assigned to committees as they are being read across the desk and, with the potential for 300 bills to be introduced within a couple of days, committee work will truly begin in earnest.

    These changes to the filing deadlines mean that legislators will have more time than usual to draft and prioritize all five of their bill requests before those requests must be filed with the House and Senate. Because of the delay in the session, legislators can take a little more time to work with drafters and stakeholders to get their bills crafted early enough to enable fiscal analysts to draft fiscal notes even before the bills are filed for introduction.

    The Executive Committee is still determining how to adjust the remaining session deadlines – i.e., first house committee passage and final passage, second house committee passage and final passage, introduction and passage of the Long Bill, and many others – to keep session work moving along. Once that information is determined it will be announced.

    What we know for sure is that things are uncertain during a pandemic. Many bills were left on the side of the road last year due to extreme time constraints, budget reductions, and a shortened legislative session. And of course, until the declared disaster is lifted, everything is subject to change.

    For more information regarding bill order, see “Got Bill Requests? Next Step is the Bill Order”. But please disregard any deadlines included in the article.

  • Happy New Year

    Happy New Year!

    We wish you a happy and healthy 2021.