Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Legislative Ethics: Accepting Gifts of Travel Expenses

    by Jennifer Gilroy

    Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution (commonly referred to as “Amendment 41”) establishes two “gift bans”: One that prohibits a member of the General Assembly from asking for or accepting gifts worth more than $65[1] from any one source in a given year and one that prohibits members of the General Assembly from accepting any money, forbearance, or forgiveness of indebtedness, unless, in either case, the member provides lawful consideration of equal or greater value in return. In today’s article, we’re going to talk about the ban on accepting gifts, specifically as it applies to gifts of travel expenses.

    There are eight exceptions that apply to both gift bans. One of those exceptions allows a legislator to accept the payment of reasonable expenses by a state or local government or by a nonprofit entity that receives less than five percent of its funding from for-profit entities to attend a convention, fact-finding mission or trip, or other meeting. To qualify for the exception, the recipient must be scheduled to speak, make a presentation, participate on a panel, or represent the state or local government. Legislators can seek an advisory opinion on a particular ethics question from the Independent Ethics Commission (IEC), created as an essential component of Amendment 41.

    On occasion, the IEC has released position statements interpreting the Amendment 41 gift bans. For example, it has interpreted Amendment 41 as permitting a covered individual to accept travel expenses from organizations whose mission it is to bring policymakers together at conferences for networking and exchanging ideas, referred to as government exchange organizations (GEO), if the government entity that employs the covered individual pays membership dues to the GEO that are invoiced expressly to cover travel and other expenses to attend its events. See, IEC PS 10-01.

    The IEC has also stated that, even if the criteria for the exceptions are not met, a covered individual may still accept the payment of travel expenses if the gift is a benefit to the government institution that employs the covered individual rather than to the individual. The IEC provided the following factors for the covered individual to consider when determining whether the gift is a gift to the government institution or to the covered individual, although no single factor is determinative and the entire context of the proposed travel must be evaluated before acceptance:

    1. Whether the offer is to a designee of an agency or government entity, rather than to a specific individual;
    2. Whether the offer is to the covered individual by virtue of the individual’s specific position or area of responsibility or expertise (ex officio);
    3. Whether the offer is for an event that is related to the covered individual’s public duties;
    4. Whether the offer poses an existing or potential conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety; and
    5. Whether the offer is for a trip for educational or government business purposes and not primarily a networking opportunity.

    See, IEC PS 12-01.

     

    Want to test what you’ve learned about accepting a gift of travel expenses? Here are some hypothetical situations for your consideration:

     

    Situation #1. You have been asked by a representative of the National Association of State Legislatures (NASL) to participate on a one-hour panel discussion at their three-day fall forum in Washington D.C. The NASL representative explains to you that NASL will pay for your airfare, hotel accommodations, and the cost of the registration to attend and participate in the conference. You learn that NASL is a nonprofit government exchange organization; however, you also learn that it receives substantially more than 5% of its annual funding from for-profit entities, despite the fact that states, including Colorado, pay substantial annual membership dues to NASL.

    May you accept payment of the airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration from NASL to attend the NASL Fall Forum in Washington D.C.?

    1. Even though NASL is a nonprofit entity, you may not accept the gift of airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration since NASL receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources.
    2. YES, so long as you disclose the value of what you receive in your quarterly gifts and honoraria report that you are required to file with the Secretary of State’s office.
    3. YES, because payment of your airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration is essentially payment of an honoraria for your participation on the panel discussion.
    4. YES, because NASL is a government exchange organization to which the state pays annual dues that are expressly invoiced to cover travel and expenses related to attendance at NASL events, consistent with the IEC’s PS 10-01.

    The correct answer is d. While NASL does not meet the five percent criterion established in the exception to the gift ban, it is a government exchange organization as described by the IEC to which the state of Colorado pays membership dues each year. Because the dues are invoiced expressly to cover travel and other expenses to attend NASL events, you may accept the payment of airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration by NASL to attend its conference. You may also be permitted to stay throughout the conference if you will also be participating in other educational events and representing state government while you are there. See, IEC AO 13-11 and IEC AO 13-12.

     

    Situation#2. You are the chair of the House Rural Affairs and Agriculture Committee. The Speaker also appointed you to serve on the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, which you also chair. You have sponsored five bills over the past two legislative sessions addressing various wildfire issues, and you consider yourself very knowledgeable on the topic of wildfires. A representative of the western division of the Council of State Legislatures (CSL), a nonprofit organization of legislators, has invited you to attend the three-day Western States Wildfire Conference they are hosting in Salt Lake City, Utah next month. Because of your expertise, experience, and knowledge related to wildfire issues and your position as the chair of the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, CSL has asked you to moderate one of the sessions on environmental ethics related to the use of slurry to fight wildfires. CSL has offered to pay for your airfare and hotel accommodations as well as a round of golf at the prestigious Eaglewood Golf Course (you are an avid golfer). You are very interested in attending this conference in hopes that you will learn more from experts in the field of wildfires and other legislators from states facing wildfire issues similar to Colorado. You have recently learned that CSL receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, and you are not sure if that will prevent you from being able to attend this educational program.

    May you attend the CSL wildfire conference?

    1. Because CSL is a nonprofit entity and because you will be participating in the program by moderating one of the sessions, you may accept the gift of airfare and hotel accommodations.
    2. Because there is a golf outing associated with the conference, you may not accept the invitation.
    3. Even though CSL is a nonprofit organization that receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, due to your expertise in the area of wildfires, and your position as chair of the House Rural Affairs and Agriculture, Committee and the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, and because there is no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, your attendance at this educational conference would actually benefit the General Assembly rather than just you as an individual.
    4. The CSL may be a nonprofit entity, but because it receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, you may not accept the payment of the conference expenses.

    The correct answer is c. PS 12-01 from the IEC provides that if the offer would actually benefit the government institution (here, the General Assembly) rather than just you as an individual, then you may be able to accept the payment of expenses to attend an educational conference. In this case, because you were invited to attend and participate in the conference due to your position as chair of the House Rural Affairs and Committee and the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, because this is an area of expertise for you, and because it is an educational conference and not just an opportunity to network, it would be appropriate for you to accept the payment of expenses associated with attending this conference under the IEC’s PS 12-01, so long as there is neither an existing or potential conflict of interest nor an appearance of impropriety. You should not accept the golf outing, unless you pay for it separately yourself.

     

    For more LegiSource articles on gift bans and the Independent Ethics Commission, see:

    Click here for other LegiSource articles regarding ethics.

     

    [1] Section 3(2) of Article XXIX originally established the gift ban cap at $50, but the Independent Ethics Commission has since adjusted that amount pursuant to section 3(6) of Article XXIX, most recently in 2019.

  • The Statutory Revision Committee

    by Jessica Wigent

    Since its (re)creation in 2016, the Statutory Revision Committee (codified in part 9 of article 3 of title 2, C.R.S.) has introduced more than 100 bills that have repealed, refreshed, and cleared conflicts, glitches, and outdated provisions from hundreds of pages of statutory text, bringing the Colorado Revised Statutes into the 21st century and now into this new decade.

    During hearings held during the 2019 interim and early in the 2020 legislative session, committee members have heard memo presentations and testimony on issues including the thorny technical matter of correctly stating effective dates and references to referred initiatives in bills concerning firefighting chemicals and transportation revenue notes; tax exemptions and deductions that haven’t been updated or available to taxpayers since Beatles, Turtles, and Monkees ruled the radio waves; and the need to rehome the definition of “alternative fuel.”

    Membership

    The SRC consists of eight legislators (two appointed by the majority and minority leadership in each house) and two nonlegislators who are nonvoting attorneys appointed by the Committee on Legal Services. Per the statute that created the SRC, the chair and vice-chair elected in the 2019 legislative session have switched positions. The membership now includes:

    Senator Rob Woodward, Chair

    Senator Rachel Zenzinger, Vice-chair

    Representative Jeni Arndt

    Representative Hugh McKean

    Senator Dominick Moreno

    Senator Jack Tate

    Representative Donald Valdez

    Representative Kevin Van Winkle

    Patrice Collins

    Brad Ramming

    Attending to the Antiquated, Obsolete, and Anachronistic

    The SRC is introducing 20 bills during the 2020 legislative session, including:

    • Four bills referred to the committee by the Tax Expenditure Interim Study Committee, which remove various outdated and inapplicable tax exemptions and deductions – HB 20-1181, HB 20-1182, HB 20-1202, and HB 20-1205;
    • Five bills referred to the committee by the Department of Revenue, which clean up references to repealed tax exemptions, update cross-references, and align statutes to the legislature’s intent – HB 20-1166, HB 20-1174, HB 20-1175, HB 20-1176, and HB 20-1177; and
    • Bills to make clear the meaning of the phrase “prior fiscal year” in regard to uncommitted reserves (SB 20-134); to add references to licensed EMS providers that were missed when two different bills amended the EMS statutes in 2019 (HB 20-1036); to add a missing cross-reference in the electrician’s practice act regarding inspection fees (SB 20-046); and, among other bills, to correct an incorrect reimbursement rate in a bill from last year concerning out-of-network health care providers, which was the result of a flurry of amendments at the end of session when two of the three provisions in a bill were updated with the correct rate, but the third was mistakenly overlooked.

    How an SRC Idea Becomes a Bill

    Executive branch agencies, the judicial branch, interested Colorado residents, legislators, and nonpartisan staff from a number of agencies in and around the Capitol, as well as legislators themselves, have brought issues for the SRC to consider. Initially, staff considers these requests and whether they fall within the charge of the SRC and then prepares a memo detailing the requested change, often with a bill draft attached for the SRC to consider.

    In addition, the statutory charge of the SRC includes examining “current judicial decisions.” To that end, the SRC has asked staff to review current statutes that are found by an appellate court to be unconstitutional. Staff annually prepares memos for the SRC to bring attention to these provisions.

    An affirmative vote from at least five of the legislative SRC members is needed to introduce proposed legislation, and the SRC regularly considers more draft bills than it approves. In 2020, the SRC rejected multiple proposals it determined were outside its charge. All proposed bill drafts, including those not approved for introduction, are publicly available on the SRC’s website and in the committee’s annual report submitted to the General Assembly. You may also email staff for more information.

    The SRC plans to meet at least once during the 2020 interim, though they are still finalizing the date and the issues to be considered. Join the SRC mailing list to be notified when these details are available.

    Know of any antiquated, redundant, or contradictory laws? Please contact the SRC staff via email: statutoryrevision.ga@coleg.gov All meetings are public, and everyone is encouraged to attend or to propose issues to the SRC staff.

  • How to Keep Up With a Changing Bill

    by Patti Dahlberg and Julie Pelegrin

    You’re running late, you’re trying to get a handle on the bills they just called up on special orders, and there are seven bills on your committee calendar for this afternoon. When you need to quickly remind yourself of what’s in a bill, you will be tempted to just check the summary that appears on the first page of the bill. But, unless the bill is in the first committee in the first house, you must resist this temptation. That’s not to say the bill summary printed on a bill can’t be helpful. While the bill summary may not tell you all you need to know, it does provide a quick overview of what the bill is doing when it’s introduced. But beware, if the bill has already passed out of a committee in the first house, it may have been amended by that committee, and those amendments will not appear in the bill summary. In this situation, there may be other options you can turn to.

    Bill Summaries

    Rule No. 29 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives requires that every bill and concurrent resolution must include a brief summary written by the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS). These summaries attempt to describe in plain language what the introduced version of the bill or concurrent resolution will accomplish if passed.

    The OLLS aims to write bill summaries that are brief (relative to the size and scope of the bill) and provide a succinct, clear, and accurate synopsis of the major points of the bill in a format that’s easier to read and, hopefully, understand than the actual language in the bill. Drafters try to avoid using legalistic and technical words in the bill summary, but sometimes using legal terms is necessary to avoid confusion or a misleading summary.

    Bill summaries take many forms and may include:

    • A description of how the bill will change existing statutes and, if useful in understanding those changes, an explanation of existing law and the legal context of the changes;
    • An explanation of the substance of a repealed statute if necessary to understanding the bill;
    • A structure that presents the statutory changes in a logical order, usually the order of importance, and may group related changes together; and
    • If the bill is recommended by an interim or statutory committee, the name of the committee in bold at the beginning of the summary.

    Preamended Versions

    On paper and electronic copies of bills, all bill summaries start with this note:

    Each bill also has its own page on the General Assembly’s website, which includes the bill summary. There is a note at the end of this summary that specifies which version of the bill the summary applies to. For example, (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

    If a bill is amended in a committee or on second or third reading, the bill summary that’s printed on the bill or that appears on an electronic copy of the bill does not change. This is true whether the amendment occurs in the house of introduction or the second house. So how can you quickly see how a bill may have changed?

    Each bill’s webpage includes links to the text of the official versions of the bill and links to what are called “preamended versions.” These are unofficial versions of the bill that show amendments adopted by a committee as they appear in the text of the bill. The changes made by a House committee are shaded; the changes made by a Senate committee are double-underlined. If you open the unofficial preamended bill, you can easily scroll through it to see changed language. These changes, combined with the original bill summary, will help you quickly come up to speed on the bill before it’s heard in another committee or on second reading.

    Once the bill passes second reading, all of the adopted amendments are enrolled into the bill. At that point, you should read the engrossed bill – also available on the bill page. But note: The printed and the electronic version of the bill summary is still not changed. The same is true of the reengrossed version of the bill, created after the bill passes on third reading in the first house. As with the preamended versions, changes made by the House are shaded; changes made by the Senate are double-underlined.

    Updated Bill Summaries Online

    So, is the bill summary ever updated? Yes—but never on the bill itself.

    If a bill is significantly amended in the first house, and the original bill summary no longer accurately describes the bill, the bill drafter updates the bill summary when the bill is introduced in the second house. The updated bill summary is posted on the bill’s webpage, but it does not appear on the paper or electronic copy of the bill itself. To make the changes in the updated bill summary readily apparent, new language appears in italics and deleted language appears in strike type. Also, once the bill is introduced in the second house, the note at the bottom of the online bill summary will read: (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.).

    Before considering a bill in the second house, you should check the summary on the bill’s webpage to see how the first house changed the bill. If the online bill summary does not show any language in italics or strike type, then the first house did not significantly amend the bill.

    Final Bill Summary

    After the legislative session ends, the bill drafters prepare a final summary for each bill that the General Assembly enacts. The final summary is posted to the bill’s webpage with this note: (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.) The OLLS also collects these final bill summaries and annually publishes them in paper copy and online as the digest of bills for each legislative session.

  • Do You Really Need to Say “But Not Limited To”?

    by Jery Payne

    Many of the residents of the town of Bow Mar were mad. They were mad at the town’s trustees, who had raised taxes to bury electric and telephone cables. To do this, the trustees had used a statute to create a special district. The citizens got lawyered up and sued the trustees. Among other claims, they argued that the special-district statute didn’t apply to the cables because the cables were owned by private, not public, companies. They got this idea from the statute’s definition of public utility:

    …one or more persons or corporations that provide electric or communication service to the public by means of electric or communication facilities and shall include any city, county, special district, or public corporation that provides electric or communication service to the public ….

    The residents argued that the phrase and shall include meant that the list, city, county, special district… was exhaustive. That is, by naming specific things the legislature meant to exclude others. A maxim of statutory interpretation is that to express one is to exclude others. So the special-district statute didn’t authorize the burial of a private corporation’s cables.

    The court wasn’t persuaded. The residents appealed all the way up to the Colorado Supreme Court, who agreed with the lower court:

    [T]he word include is ordinarily used as a word of extension or enlargement, and we find that it was so used in this definition. To hold otherwise here would transmogrify the word include into the word mean. [Emphasis Added]

    The United States Supreme Court has also interpreted shall include. In this case, they were construing this statute:

    ‘[C]reditor’ shall include anyone who owns a demand or claim provable in bankruptcy, and may include his duly authorized agent, attorney, or proxy.

    The court held that “It is plain that ‘shall include’ … cannot reasonably be read to be the equivalent of ‘shall mean….’”

    How did these cases arise? It was because sometimes drafters need to add examples to a statute. For example, they may want a statute to apply to fruit, so they write:

    Fruit means the edible part of a plant developed from a flower.

    Then someone becomes concerned that a court won’t include peas or tomatoes. To address this concern, they add a comma and “including peas or tomatoes.” Yet the inclusion–exclusion maxim makes drafters fear that listing peas and tomatoes will make a court think they mean only peas and tomatoes. So they add but not limited to and end up with this:  “Fruit means the edible part of a plant developed from a flower, including, but not limited to, peas and tomatoes.”

    But Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction has a different take:

    The word ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation….[1]

    And a review of Colorado cases suggests that the phrase “but not limited to” isn’t necessary:

    • Colorado Common Cause v. Meyer: “The word ‘includes’ has been found by the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions to be a term of extension or enlargement when used in a statutory definition”
    • Cherry Creek School Dist. #5 v. Voelker: “A statutory definition of a term as ‘including’ certain things does not restrict the meaning to those items included.”
    • Arnold v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections: “The word ‘including’ is ordinarily used as a word of extension or enlargement and is not definitionally equivalent to the word ‘mean.’”
    • DirecTV v. Crespin: “Nothing in §605(d)(6) indicates that Congress intended to depart from the normal use of “include” as introducing an illustrative—and non-exclusive—list of entities ….”
    • Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. King Consol. Ditch Co: “A statutory definition of a term as ‘including’ certain things does not restrict the meaning to those items included. The word ‘include is ordinarily used as a word of extension or enlargement.”

    It turns out that judges speak the same English as you and I do; they understand the meaning of includes and including.

    I didn’t find any Colorado cases that went the other way. So I cast the net a little wider and found Shelby Cnty. State Bank v. Van Diest Supply Co. This case dealt with a lien on “all inventory, including, but not limited to, agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and fertilizer materials sold to Debtor ….”[Emphasis added.] In this case the 7th circuit explained that:

    [I]t would be bizarre as a commercial matter to claim a lien in everything, and then to describe in detail only a smaller part of that whole. … But if all goods of any kind are to be included, why mention only a few? A court required to give “reasonable and effective meaning to all terms” must shy away from finding that a significant phrase (like the lengthy description of chemicals and fertilizers we have here) is nothing but surplusage.

    So the court did interpret the word including as limiting, and the judges didn’t care that the contract used the phrase but not limited to. So this phrase isn’t a guarantee. And I have found several similar cases, so we probably shouldn’t get much comfort from the phrase but not limited to.

    Think of how many trees your Colorado could save by cutting out this unnecessary bit of legalese.

     

    [1] N. Singer, 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.07 (Seventh Edition)

  • CCUSL Recommends Five Uniform Acts for Introduction in 2020

    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 July annual conference to identify a preliminary legislative agenda of approved uniform acts for potential introduction in Colorado. The CCUSL then typically hosts two to three public meetings at the state capitol to discuss its proposed legislation and to 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 25, 2019, and December 9, 2019, and approved five uniform acts for introduction as commission bills during the 2020 legislative session. Two of the uniform acts approved for introduction were ULC acts newly approved at the 2019 July annual meeting, and the other three uniform acts were ULC-approved acts from prior years. The five uniform acts approved for introduction in 2020 in Colorado are:

    • Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act. This act covers the deployment of automated vehicles on roads held open to the public by reconciling 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 an automated driving provider (ADP) 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. Only an automated vehicle that is associated with an ADP may be registered.  In this way, the Automated Operation of Vehicles Act uses the motor vehicle registration framework that already exists in states – and that applies to both conventional and automated vehicles – to incentivize self-identification by ADPs.  By harnessing an existing framework, the act also seeks to respect and empower state motor vehicle agencies.
    • Uniform Collaborative Law. This act, promulgated by the ULC in 2009 and subsequently amended in 2010, 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.
    • Uniform Criminal Records Accuracy Act. Approved by the ULC in 2018, this act is designed to improve the accuracy of criminal history records, commonly called RAP sheets, that are frequently used in determining the eligibility of a person for employment, housing, credit, and licensing, in addition to their use for law enforcement purposes. The act imposes duties on governmental law enforcement agencies and courts that collect, store, and use criminal history records to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the RAP sheet. The act provides individuals the right to see and correct errors in their RAP sheet. Through use of a mistaken identity prevention registry, the act also provides a mechanism by which an individual whose name is similar to and confused with a person who is the subject of criminal-history-record information, a means to minimize the possibility of a mistaken arrest or denial of housing, employment, credit, or other opportunities.
    • Uniform Parentage Act (2017). Colorado enacted the 1973 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) in 1977. The 2017 version is an update of the 2002 revised act, which streamlined the UPA (1973), added provisions permitting a non-judicial acknowledgment of paternity procedure that is the equivalent of an adjudication of parentage in a court, and added a paternity registry. UPA (2002) included provisions governing genetic testing, rules for determining the parentage of children whose conception was not the result of sexual intercourse, and the option to authorize surrogacy agreements and establish the parentage of children born under the agreements. UPA (2017) changes include broadening the presumption, acknowledgment, genetic testing, and assisted reproduction articles to make them gender-neutral in order to better comply with the US Constitution. These updates seek to ensure the equal treatment of children born to same-sex couples, provide clarity to these families, and avoid unnecessary litigation. The 2017 version also provides for the establishment of de facto parents and precludes the establishment of a parent-child relationship by the perpetrator of a sexual assault that resulted in the conception of the child. It updates the surrogacy provisions to make them more consistent with current practice and includes a new article addressing the rights of children born through assisted reproductive technology to access medical information regarding any gamete providers without disclosing the identity of that provider without his or her permission.
    • Uniform Registration of Canadian Money Judgments Act. This act creates an administrative procedure for the registration and enforcement of Canadian money judgments as an efficient alternative to filing a lawsuit for recognition and enforcement. Once the Canadian judgment is successfully registered in the state, the judgment is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment rendered in that state. It only applies to a Canadian judgment if it (1) grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; (2) is final, conclusive, and enforceable in Canada; and (3) its recognition is sought in order to enforce the judgment. It supplements the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (enacted in Colorado in 2008) by providing an alternative method to seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

    It is anticipated that CCUSL bills will be introduced starting in late January. For links to a commission bill’s information page as it is introduced and proceeds through the legislative process, go to the “Uniform Acts Approved For Introduction In 2020” section on the  CCUSL Additional Information page and click on the appropriate link as it is posted.

    Several uniform acts remain on the CCUSL agenda for discussion and consideration for introduction in future legislative sessions:

    • Amendments to the Uniform Probate Code (2019)
    • Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act (2015) and 2019 Amendments
    • Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act
    • Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act
    • Uniform Trust Act, part 5

     

    Other articles regarding the ULC and CCUSL:

  • Too Many Bills! When and How to Delay

    by Darren Thornberry & Patti Dahlberg

    Now that you’ve met most of the bill deadlines set by rule, it’s time to consider taking care of a few pesky bill limits and deadlines that aren’t quite working for you this year. The five-bill limit and the filing date deadlines imposed by Joint Rules 23 and 24 were implemented to keep bills and other legislative work moving through the legislative process in a timely manner. But these rules also allow some bills to be exempted from these bill limits and deadlines. In a perfect session, a legislator might need only five bills to accomplish what he or she wants to see done in a session; and, of course, these bills would sail through all readings and committees and meet all deadlines with ease. The Governor’s desk would groan under the weight of so much gleaming legislation so early in session!

    We can dream!

    However, sometimes five bills just aren’t enough. Or a bill is submitted after a request deadline. Or a bill is more complex than expected. Or, after introduction, a bill simply needs more time to meet the remaining deadlines. When any of these situations occur, a legislator needs to obtain delayed bill authorization for the bill to be drafted or to continue through the legislative process. Delayed authorization is needed when:

    • A legislator submits a bill request after the bill request deadline, the bill request exceeds the legislator’s five-bill limit, or the legislator is being added as a joint prime sponsor to a bill in the first house. Any of these circumstances will cause the legislator to exceed the five bill-limit. This requires a waiver of one or more “bill limits” (and possibly bill deadline dates).
    • A bill request requires additional time for drafting, necessitating a waiver of one or more “bill deadlines”.
    • An introduced bill is not scheduled for a hearing or final vote in time to meet the committee or final passage deadline. This requires a waiver of one or more “bill deadlines”.

    The process for obtaining “delayed” or “late” bill authorization starts with the Speaker’s or the President’s office.  A legislator must request permission for delayed status for a bill from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills (i.e., Leadership).  At the beginning of the legislative session, House and Senate Leadership designate a specific process for legislators to follow when requesting delayed bill authorization and the leadership staff who will be able to answer questions on the process. The Speaker or President’s staff should be able to provide this information.

    Leadership reviews all requests for delayed bill authorization and may request additional information from sponsors before deciding whether to grant approval. In both the House and the Senate, the approval process has two steps. If, as step one, Leadership initially grants approval, leadership staff notifies the Office of Legislative Services (OLLS) that Leadership has granted preliminary approval. This gives preliminary approval on the request to add a legislator as a joint-prime sponsor, to draft a new bill, to continue to draft a bill that is already being drafted but is unable to meet its introduction deadline, or, for bills that have been introduced and now need additional deadlines waived, to allow the bill to remain on the calendar in its current position. Upon receipt of preliminary approval, the OLLS creates the official delayed bill letter according to Leadership’s directions regarding the limits and deadlines waived, including any specified deadline dates, for signature by the applicable Committee on Delayed Bills. To complete the second step of the process, at least two of the three members of the applicable Committee on Delayed Bills must sign the official delayed bill letter before delayed status is considered approved and the bill can be introduced or, if already introduced, continue through the legislative process.

    Bills that need any type of delayed bill authorization can’t move to the next step in the legislative process until official delayed bill authorization is granted in the form of the official signed letter.  Once Leadership signs the official letter, the letter is attached to the bill so that at every subsequent step during the process it is easily ascertained that the bill has delayed bill approval and, if new deadline dates are specified, what those new deadline dates are.

  • C.R.S. Books vs. C.R.S. Online: Why Aren’t They the Same?

    by Jennifer Gilroy

    Recently it came to my attention that a significant change in the law took place right after the Office of Legislative Legal Services (Office) had approved the proof print for the final title of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) and sent it off to our printers, LexisNexis, for formatting, printing, and distribution.  At that moment I knew the beautiful set of burgundy-colored leatherette soft-bound volumes that this office had worked on so meticulously for the preceding three months would be sadly out of date the moment they would be delivered.

    You might wonder how the Office didn’t know that there would be a change in the law and account for it in the official publication.  It is because, on occasion, bills are written in anticipation of an event that is expected to occur at some unknown time in the future.  That event is the trigger for a new law to take effect or for an existing law to repeal. For example, a bill creating a new program may provide that the new law will not take effect until the federal Department of Health and Human Services grants a waiver to the state Department of Human Services to implement the program that the bill creates.  In that situation, the drafter typically includes a provision in the law directing the executive director of the state Department of Human Services to notify the revisor of statutes when the triggering event has occurred, and, with that notice, the new law comes to life.  However, if the triggering event—or even the receipt of the notice of the triggering event—occurs after August 10th, it is too late to change the books.  August 10th is the cut-off date by which the Office must approve the final proof print for the publication of the Official C.R.S. No changes can be made to the printed C.R.S. thereafter.

    This is particularly frustrating when I receive a notice to the revisor after August 10th, but I learn from the notice that the triggering event (the approval of the waiver in my example) actually occurred a month or two earlier when the Office could have identified in an editor’s note that the triggering event had occurred and that the law is effective.  Instead, however, the reader only sees the law printed in the books, accompanied by an editor’s note that reads, “As of the publication date, the revisor of statutes has not received the notice referred to in subsection (1).”  When the reader sees that type of note, he or she does not know whether the law is in effect or merely pending the event.  It’s even more confusing when the triggering event ultimately results in the repeal of a law already on the books.  In that situation, the reader can see the law published in the official statutes, but the editor’s note does not help the reader understand whether the law is still in effect.

    On the other hand, the online version of the C.R.S. is much more nimble and can be easily updated to reflect that the triggering event has occurred and that the law in question is now in effect or repealed, as the case may be. Working with our partners at LexisNexis, the Office can update the editor’s notes and remove repealed law that is no longer effective on a real-time basis. But should the online version, accessible through the General Assembly’s website, be different from the C.R.S. books?

    For years I have struggled with that dilemma for two reasons: One, I’ve historically believed that both the book version and the online version of the C.R.S., in addition to the DVD, should be

    identical so that two different people reading the law published by the General Assembly don’t see two different versions. Second, the books are still the only “official” version of the Colorado’s

    An example of statutory language referencing notification to the revisor of statutes and the accompanying editor’s note.

    primary statutory law. See §2-5-118, C.R.S. Until the legislature can ensure compliance with the three requirements of the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (See article 71.5 of title 24, C.R.S.) to allow the online version to also be an “official” source of the primary statutory law, those lovely burgundy leatherette books remain the only official version of Colorado’s statutory law. But, while the online version cannot be official, it could be more up-to-date.

    After significant rumination on the subject, I have decided to change my historical approach of keeping all versions of the C.R.S. the same, and begin updating the online version as new information becomes available that will affect the law presented in the C.R.S. This decision is based primarily on a belief that public expectations likely favor timely online updates to reflect the current state of the law. Most people recognize that the books cannot be updated and changed as information becomes available over the course of the year without costly errata supplements, but they presume a vibrant website source can be. Therefore, going forward, the Office will update the online statutes as we receive notices that indicate a change in the law has occurred.

    What to take away from this article?  I recommend that when doing research, feel free to conduct your research using the online version of the C.R.S. (https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes) to see the most updated state of the law. But for official court filings or other formal business, confirm the text with the official version in the books. If you are still in doubt, call the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

  • 125 Years Ago Today

    by Darren Thornberry

    On January 2, 1895, the Colorado General Assembly met in its new statehouse for the first time. Outgoing governor Davis Waite had moved into the building two months earlier, but work on the Capitol would not be complete for 13 more years. Imagine the deafening din of hammers and trowels while trying to debate on the chamber floors. Just getting here from far flung Trinidad, Leadville, or Ouray would have been a feat.

    According to the Senate journal of that day, Lt. Gov. David H. Nichols and Asst. Secretary of the Ninth General Assembly, Stanley Stokes, called the Senate to order (exact time unknown) and Rev. Thomas Uzzell gave the invocation. Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Charles Hayt, administered the oath to 16 newly elected Senators.

    The House of Representatives convened at noon and was called to order by Chief Clerk of the Ninth General Assembly John R. Wallingford followed by a prayer by Prof. T.N. Haskell. Among the day’s business was nominating a clerk pro tempore, and the body unanimously voted for Wallingford. Mr. A. Humphrey of El Paso County received a majority of votes to become Speaker of the House.

    Truth be told, much about the process of offering, debating, and voting on legislation remains the same as it did 125 years ago. Here are three notable bills passed by the 10th General Assembly that reflect Colorado citizens’ interests and concerns of the day.

    S.B. 294 – World’s Fair (Senator Reuter)
    This bill, designed to elevate Colorado to the world stage, provided for the appointment of three commissioners of the state of Colorado to the World’s Fair, which was to be held in Paris, France, in 1900. The duty of the commissioners would be to make suggestions for the proper presentation of the interests of the state at the World’s Fair. The commissioners would of course receive no compensation for services rendered or expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties unless specially provided for by law.

    H.B. 218 – Train Wrecking (Rep. Humphrey)
    The bill provided for the punishment of train wrecking and train robbing. Any person or persons who willfully and maliciously threw out a switch, removed or in any manner loosened a rail, or placed any obstruction on any railroad or tramway track operated in the state of Colorado, with the intention of derailing any passenger, freight, or other train, or who willfully boarded any passenger, freight, or other train with the intention of robbing the same, or who willfully placed any dynamite or other explosive material on the track of any railroad in the state of Colorado, with the intention of blowing up or derailing any passenger, freight, or other train, or who willfully set fire to any railroad bridge or trestle over which any passenger, freight, or other train, upon conviction, would be adjudged guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 years. And that term could be extended to life imprisonment!

    H.B. 19 – Mayhem (Rep. Morris)
    In this somewhat terrifying bill, mayhem was defined as unlawfully depriving a human being of a member of his or her body or disfiguring or rendering it useless. The bill stated that any person who unlawfully cut out or disabled the tongue, put out an eye, slit the nose, ear, or lip, or disabled any limb or member of another, or voluntarily and of purpose put out an eye or eyes, was guilty of mayhem, and on conviction would be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for a term not less than one year nor more than 20 years. Naturally, there’s an exception: No person would be found guilty of mayhem if it occurred during a consensual fight, nor unless it appeared that the person accused was the assailant, or that the party maimed had in good faith endeavored to decline further combat.

    Much history has been made at the Colorado Capitol over these 125 years. The will of the people, through their elected representatives, is imposed here today just as it was on Jan. 2, 1895. Let us be grateful for and humbled by this legacy of democracy in action.

     

    All photos courtesy of the Denver Public Library.

  • Happy Holidays from the OLLS

    The 2019 capitol tree was provided by the Colorado State Forest Service. The placard next to the tree reads:

    “This subalpine fir tree was provided by

    Colorado State Forest Service

    Fort Collins District

    The tree was harvested at 8,500 feet in northern Larimer County on State Trust Land. Foresters selectively cut trees on the property to improve forest health and mitigate risks from wildfire, insects and disease.”

  • Throwback Thursday – 1919: Continued Social Unrest and a Growing Fear of the Color Red

    by Patti Dahlberg

    The “Red Summer” of 1919 refers to violent race riots that took place in more than 30 cities throughout the country between May and October. The most well-known confrontations were in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and outside of Elaine, Arkansas. The riots in the North marked the culmination of steadily growing tensions surrounding the migration of an estimated half million African Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North to work in the factories, warehouses, and mills experiencing severe labor shortages due to military enlistments. When thousands of soldiers returned home from the war, they found few available jobs. Growing financial insecurity caused racial and ethnic prejudices to rage to the surface. At the same time, African-American veterans who had fought and sacrificed for freedom and democracy overseas in WWI found themselves back home and denied basic rights such as adequate housing and equality under the law.

    The first acts of violence occurred in the South and then became more prevalent in northern cities. On July 19, 1919, in Washington, D.C., a group of white men started randomly beating African-American pedestrians and streetcar riders after hearing that an African-American man had been accused of rape. When the police refused to intervene, African-Americans fought back. After four days of rioting, six were dead and another 50 were seriously injured.

    On July 27, an African-American teenager drowned in Lake Michigan after being stoned by a group of white youths for violating the unofficial segregation of Chicago’s beaches. His death, and the police’s refusal to arrest the white man whom eyewitnesses identified as causing it, sparked a week of rioting between gangs of African Americans and white Chicagoans. When the riots finally ended on August 3, 38 were dead and more than 500 injured. In addition, a thousand African-American families lost their homes to vandalism and fire.

    On September 30 outside of Elaine, Arkansas, in a confrontation between white planters opposing the union organization efforts of African-American sharecroppers, a white man was killed. Rumors of an African-American revolt caused whites to gather en masse to “put down” what was being called a “black insurrection.” Men from other counties joined in and soon 500 to 1,000 armed men in mobs were attacking African Americans on sight. There was no exact account of the number of casualties but estimates put the number killed somewhere between 200 and 800. Colorado did not evidently experience the level of race violence that occurred in other states.

    Anarchists and the Red Scare

    In April of 1919, more than 30 bombs were mailed to prominent citizens, including John D. Rockefeller, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, and America’s first Secretary of Labor, William Wilson. Most of the bombs did not detonate or were discovered in New York post offices before being delivered, so there was no loss of life although there was one reported serious injury. No one was prosecuted for the mail bombs, but history presumes that those responsible were anarchists, specifically followers of Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani. It was widely believed that “Galleanists” orchestrated the mail bombs and were also responsible for a coordinated attack on judges, politicians, law enforcement officials, and prominent businessmen in eight American cities on June 2. Large bombs, each fueled by 20 pounds of dynamite, exploded at residences in Boston, Cleveland, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C. The blasts shook neighborhoods and destroyed homes. Debris and shrapnel injured several people. A night watchman in New York was killed and when the bomb at U.S. Attorney General Palmer’s residence in D.C. exploded prematurely, it killed the anarchist carrying it and narrowly missed a young Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt who had passed by the house just moments before. None of the targeted individuals were killed. Bomb scares continued throughout the year and into 1920, when a large explosion in front of the Morgan Bank at 23 Wall Street killed more than 30 people and wounded hundreds more. To deflect the impending threat of anarchy and violence, Colorado legislators passed Senate Bill No. 30 “Red Flag – Display made a Felony” to prevent the display of the red flag, considered to be “the emblem of anarchy,” in public in the State of Colorado.

    The air was heavy with the fear of the next “red terror” attack. U.S. Attorney General Palmer responded with a massive investigation by the decade-old Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led by a young Justice Department attorney named J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover and his team collected detailed information on suspected radicals and their activities. Attorney General Palmer used this information to initiate a series of raids, called “Palmer Raids,” to target radical organizations throughout the country. Not to be outdone, Governor Oliver H. Shoup called Colorado legislators into a Special Session to “curb and eradicate threats against our form of government.” The Colorado legislature passed House Bill No. 1 “Anarchy and Sedition – Suppression of Conspiracies against State” describing what constituted the felony of anarchy and sedition in Colorado and assigning a penalty of up to 20 years of prison time. The legislature also appropriated funds to pay for any expenses incurred in “suppressing threatened tumult and riot in the state, and in maintaining law and order therein by the use of the National Guard.”

    During the Palmer Raids, approximately 10,000 people were arrested for allegedly violating the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, or the Immigration Act of 1918.  Of those arrested, 3,500 were detained and 556 were eventually deported. After the coordinated raids in 33 cities on January 2, 1920, reports of brutality and detainee abuse became public. The constitutionality of the raids and law enforcement actions during the raids were openly questioned and publicly criticized. Growing distress regarding the abuse of the civil liberties of those arrested simply because they were immigrants turned public opinion against Palmer and his raids. During the January 2nd federal raid in Denver, federal agents could find only eight radicals. After January 1920, the raids tapered off and the country’s fear of insurrection subsided.

     

    Sources:

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1102

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/death-hundreds-elaine-massacre-led-supreme-court-take-major-step-toward-equal-justice-african-americans-180969863/

    https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/early-fbi-terrorism-case-062819

    https://www.history.com/topics/red-scare/palmer-raids

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palmer-Raids