At the corner of Colfax and Broadway stands the Pioneer Monument, a triangular fountain (except when the water is turned off during the winter or water rationing) paying tribute to those who crossed the Great Plains from the Missouri River to Denver along the Smoky Hill Trail. The trail, although more dangerous than other prairie trails, became the principal route for prospectors seeking fortune during the Colorado Gold Rush of 1859.
The monument sits at the end of the Smoky Hill Trail. Designed by Frederick MacMonnies, it was dedicated in 1911 along with Civic Center Park. At its apex is a bronze figure of Kit Carson on a horse and around the rim of the fountain are three additional bronze figures – the hunter, the prospector, and the pioneer mother. The artist’s original design called for a Sioux warrior at the top of the fountain, but there was such an uproar about it that the artist switched the apex figure to the famous scout. The State Historical Society of Colorado added the plaque memorializing the Smoky Hill Trail in 1936.
History of the Smoky Hill Trail
As news of the gold found along the Cherry Creek quickly spread, would-be prospectors began traversing the country to seek their fortunes. There was, however, no official route connecting the East to Denver. The westernmost traveling point at that time was one of the jumping off points for the Oregon Trail in Salina (about 175 miles southwest of Leavenworth, Kansas). Prior to the Colorado gold rush, those traveling west would turn North or South to their destination in order to avoid the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains. To shorten the route from Kansas towns to Denver, frontiersmen began using an old Native American buffalo hunting trail along the Smoky Hill River.
In 1859, an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News condemned the men and newspapers in the East encouraging people, in their rush for gold, to start out on the Smoky Hill Trail with inadequate provisions and the expectation of a good road and good camps with plenty of wood and water. Instead, there was no road, very little wood and, in many places, no water.
Not deterred by the lack of food, scarce water supplies, frigid temperatures, and attacks by local tribes, thousands of prospectors, homesteaders, and soldiers traveled the Smoky Hill Trail between 1859 and 1865. Pioneers traveled in covered wagons or on foot pushing carts and wheelbarrows with many, especially that first year, barely surviving the trek. In Colorado, the largely unmarked trail separated into North and South paths, both ending in Denver. At one point there was a third path, called the “Middle Smoky Hill” which later became known as the “Starvation Trail” when the members of the Blue party were forced to resort to cannibalism to survive. Once the lone survivor (only because he was saved by the Arapaho) made his way to Denver with his tale, travel on the trail stopped while it was surveyed and more clearly marked to show the location of the trail and the best route for water.
A couple of stage lines started up and failed before the Butterfield Overland Dispatch[1] was able to establish stagecoach transportation in 1865. The Dispatch built relay stations about every 12 miles along the 592-mile long route. Forts were built and soldiers posted along the stage route to protect the stations and travelers. By 1870, the Kansas Pacific Railroad pushed toward Denver, eliminating the need for stagecoaches.
During the trail’s days of popularity, a number of famous and colorful characters traveled its path, including Generals Custer and Sheridan, Wild Bill Hickock, Wyatt Earp, John Wesley Hardin, and Buffalo Bill Cody. The trail also saw its share of bloodshed and death. Today, the old trail has several markers, old forts, and museums along its route from Kansas to Denver, ending in the Pioneer Monument in Denver.
According to Joint Rule 24 (b)(1)(A), every legislator is allowed to submit five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bills that a legislator may choose to carry and must be submitted by the bill request deadlines. But in order to keep these five bill requests, a legislator’s bill requests must also meet specific bill filing deadlines.
Filing bills and introduction deadlines.
Bill requests may be forfeited if the request does not meet specific filing deadlines.* Prior to the start of each session, a legislator must decide which of his or her bill requests will be his or her “prefile” bill (to be filed and ready for introduction on the first day of session). And, of course, which two bill requests will meet the other early bill introduction deadline. At some point at the start of session, a legislator must also decide which two bills will meet the regular bill deadlines.
The filing deadline for prefile bills is normally five days prior to the start of session. This year, however, the prefile deadline is Friday, December 28, 2018. Each legislator must have one bill delivered to the front desk of the House or the Senate by this date or consider one of his or her bill requests as forfeited.*
The House and Senate early and regular deadlines for filing bills for introduction vary by chamber:
Bill Orders
A legislator’s “bill order” is the order in which his or her bills are filed for introduction. Joint Rule 23 (a) says that a legislator should choose his or her prefile bill and two early bills from the three requests made by the early bill request deadlines. This year the early request deadlines were Monday, November 26, 2018, for returning General Assembly members and Monday, December 10, 2018, for those members newly elected this year. The rule also allows a legislator to choose a bill request submitted after this early request deadline to meet the early bill introduction deadlines if needed.
A legislator’s early bill requests usually are filed as his or her early bills because these requests are submitted earlier and, therefore, are more likely to be further along in the drafting process than a bill request submitted later. But sometimes an early bill request may be more complicated than expected. In this case, the legislator may choose a relatively simple “regular” bill request (i.e., a request submitted after the early deadlines in November and December) to be one of his or her bills filed with the House or Senate in time to meet an “early” bill filing deadline, leaving the legislator with more time to work on the more complicated bill request.
The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) encourages legislators to designate their prefile bill and other early bills (i.e., the bill order) as soon as possible in early December so that the OLLS can prioritize the drafting on these bills accordingly. If the OLLS does not have a legislator’s bill order on record, we will contact the legislator for this information and will continue contacting the legislator until the information is received.
* A legislator can ask for permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills, whichever is appropriate, to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill deadline to a different date.
The Colorado Supreme Court recently had to decide whether Senate Bill 16-181, concerning the sentencing of persons convicted of class 1 felonies committed while the persons were juveniles, was unconstitutional because it violated the special legislation clause, Article 5, section 25 of the Colorado constitution. S.B. 16-181 is related to juvenile sentences that were determined to be unconstitutional based on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
BACKGROUND
In Colorado from July 1, 1990, to July 1, 2006, a juvenile convicted of a class 1 felony in a district court was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory LWOP sentence for a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Then, in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its decision applied retroactively. Together, these decisions invalidated the Colorado LWOP sentences for approximately 50 individuals.
That created a problem for the Colorado courts that had to resentence those individuals, because there was no statutory guidance for what type of sentence could be imposed. Ultimately, the Colorado Supreme Court was forced to decide: What sentence range would the legislature have adopted if it knew an LWOP sentence was unconstitutional? In People v. Tate, the Colorado Supreme Court implored the legislature to address the issue. In 2016, the General Assembly did so by passing S.B. 16-181.
S.B. 16-181 essentially creates two different sentencing ranges for those individuals serving the unconstitutional LWOP sentences. For those serving a sentence for a conviction of felony murder[1], the range is 30 to 50 years and for those serving a sentence for a conviction of another class 1 felony it is a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 40 years.
Curtis Brooks was sentenced in 1997 to an LWOP sentence after being convicted of felony murder. Brooks sought resentencing of his unconstitutional sentence under the new sentencing scheme created in S.B. 16-181, asking the court to sentence him within the 30-to- 50-year range. The prosecution objected arguing the 30-to-50-year range violated the constitutional prohibition on special legislation. Originally, the district court agreed with the prosecution that the provision was unconstitutional, but then reversed itself on reconsideration. Before resentencing occurred, the prosecution appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court on the special legislation question.
ANALYSIS
The prosecution premised its claim on the fact that the sentencing provision had two different provisions, one for those who committed felony murder and one for those who committed any other class 1 felony. They argued that the felony murder sentencing provision was special legislation because it created a special class apart from everyone else subject to an unconstitutional LWOP sentence.
The special legislation clause was enacted, in part, to prevent legislation that applies to some classes but not others without a reasonable basis for distinguishing them. It was also intended to curb favoritism on the part of the General Assembly, prevent the state government from interfering with local affairs, and preclude the legislature from passing unnecessary laws to fit limited circumstances. To determine if a statute is special legislation, there is a two-part inquiry. First, is the classification adopted by the legislature a genuine class or is it logically and factually limited to a class of one and thus illusory? If the class is illusory, then it is prohibited special legislation. If not, then the question is whether the classification is reasonable.
The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether the classification the legislature created for those convicted of felony murder was genuine or illusory. First, it was estimated that the class in this case currently applies to at least 16 of the approximately 50 persons who are serving the unconstitutional LWOP sentence. The Court found that the class being larger than one favored a finding that it was genuine. Second, the Court found that the class was not limited by time, also suggesting it was genuine. Although there are currently at least 16 individuals in the class, an individual in the future who is convicted of felony murder for a cold case committed between 1990 and 2006 would also be subject to the classification. So, it was possible the class could expand beyond 16. Finally, the court analyzed the legislation and found that the legislature did not tailor the legislation to accomplish a particular purpose. Instead, the legislature was responding to fill the gap left by the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination that an LWOP sentence is unconstitutional. The Colorado Supreme Court found that the classification was genuine.
That led the Court to consider whether the classification was reasonable. To determine whether the classification is reasonable, a court must consider whether there is a reasonable relationship between the legislation’s legitimate stated purpose and the classification. The Court found it reasonable to treat those who committed felony murder different from those who committed a different class 1 felony in two contexts. The legislature’s plenary authority allows it to adopt more severe penalties for conduct with more grave conduct and vice versa, so the legislature reasonably decided to treat those convicted of felony murder differently from those convicted of a different class 1 felony. The court also found it was reasonable for the legislature to create a different sentencing scheme for those convicted between 1990 and 2006 rather than just applying the current scheme to those individuals since the gap was created by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. It was reasonable to create a different scheme for those individuals, because the individuals had already served a decade or more in prison and thus were in a unique position compared to a person convicted today.
With these findings, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the juvenile sentencing provision adopted in S.B. 16-181 against claims it is special legislation.
[1] A person commits felony murder by committing or attempting to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, or escape and in the course or furtherance of the crime or while in immediate flight therefrom the death of another person is caused. §18-3-102, C.R.S.
Duplicate bill requests occur every session, and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) must handle each such scenario with diplomacy, tact, and confidentiality. Beginning with the 2019 session, the OLLS is taking a new approach to handle instances in which more than one legislator requests the same bill.
If an OLLS staff member determines that two bill requests are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates, the assigned drafter will do the following:
First, determine whether the requests are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates or merely similar.
If the drafter determines the two bill requests are merely similar, the drafter will continue drafting both requests without divulging any information to the requesting legislators regarding the existence of the two bill requests.
If the bills are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates, the drafter will contact each requesting legislator and inform him or her that the OLLS believes his or her request may be a duplicate of another bill request that has been filed with the OLLS. In this conversation, the drafter may disclose whether the other requestor is from the Senate or the House of Representatives and whether the requestor is a member of the same party.
The drafter will ask each requesting legislator for permission to disclose his or her identity to the other legislator who requested the bill. Note that the drafter is seeking the same permission from both legislators, and one legislator might give permission for such disclosure while the other legislator might not. If neither legislator gives permission to contact the other legislator, and both legislators indicate that they wish to continue with their bill requests, the drafter will continue to work on both requests without divulging any more information to either legislator about the other legislator’s request.
If either legislator directs the drafter to disclose his or her identity to the other legislator, the drafter will do so. Once the disclosure is made, the drafter will leave it up to the legislators to determine how to resolve the duplicate bill situation. The drafter’s goal is to let the two legislators decide what they want to do without assuming the role of an intermediary.
In resolving a duplicate-bill-request situation, legislators may want to join efforts as prime sponsors in each house, or they may want to become joint prime sponsors in the same house, or one may become a prime sponsor and the other a sponsor, or one of them may kill his or her request. In some cases, both legislators will proceed with their bills and let the issue work itself out through the process.
Note that a drafter may need to modify the process in the case of a partial duplicate bill request. A partial duplicate occurs when one requested bill contains a duplicate portion of another requested bill. In this case, the drafter must not disclose the other contents of a bill that is only a partial duplicate. The bill sponsors may choose to work out which bill will contain the duplicate provision or choose to include it in both bills.
Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether two bill requests are truly duplicates. When in doubt, the OLLS will err on the side of caution by identifying a potential duplicate situation to the legislators who requested the bills.
If legislators have any questions about the new OLLS policy, they should contact the office and ask to speak to an attorney.
The 2018 elections are over and the next legislative session convenes on Friday, January 4, 2019. The constitution, legislative rules, and a looming 120-day legislative session do not allow new and returning legislators much time for rest and relaxation between the November election and the January session. Bill deadlines require legislators to complete the bulk of bill drafting in December and well before the first day of the legislative session.* And this year, due to the earlier convening date (See “Surprise! The 2019 Legislative Session Convening a Week Earlier”, posted September 20, 2018,) all bill deadlines are earlier than normal!
Returning legislators have until Monday, November 26, 2018, to submit their first three bill requests to the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS). Newly elected legislators have a little more time — but not much — to get their session legs. They must submit their first three bill requests to the OLLS by Monday, December 10, 2018. Legislators who have already submitted bill requests, or those who do so as soon as possible, allow drafters to start crafting their bill drafts earlier, which can subsequently help identify and fix many drafting issues long before the first day of session.
The Joint Rules allow each legislator up to five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bill requests that a legislator may choose to carry.†
This year, to reach the five bill request limit within session deadlines, a legislator must submit at least three of those bill requests to the OLLS by November 26, if the legislator was a member of the 71st General Assembly, or by December 10, if the legislator was newly elected to the 72nd General Assembly on November 6. In addition, all legislators must submit the last two (of five) requests to the OLLS by Thursday, January 10, 2019. †
If a legislator submits fewer than three requests on or before the November 26 or December 10 deadline, he or she forfeits the other one or two unrequested bills that were due by that date.†
When submitting bill requests on deadline dates, legislators should be prepared to provide sufficient drafting information so that the drafters can immediately start drafting. The legislator will also need to decide which of these requests will be filed by Friday, December 28, 2018 for introduction on the first day of session. And for newly elected legislators, keep in mind that although the legislative rules allow you more time to submit your first three bill requests than a returning legislator, these rules do not give you, as a new legislator, more time to have your bills drafted. You will actually have less time for bill drafting!
If possible, every legislator — even new ones — should try to submit at least one bill request ASAP. Don’t worry about having all the information or all the answers at this point. The bill drafting process allows for bill drafters to ask questions and help you find information. The drafting process can also allow potential issues or problems to rise to the surface making it easier for the legislator to decide whether his or her idea is “workable.” If it becomes apparent that a request isn’t working, the legislator may be able to withdraw it and replace it with a new request, as long as he or she makes that decision on or before the November 26 deadline for returning members or the December 10 deadline for new members.
Legislators should consider submitting more than the minimum three requests by the earlier request deadline. By doing so, a legislator may preserve the flexibility to withdraw and replace at least one of his or her requests after the early request deadline without losing a request. For example, if a legislator submits only three requests by the early deadline and later withdraws one of them, the legislator forfeits the withdrawn bill request because the joint rules allow a legislator to make only two bill requests after the November 26 or December 10 deadline, whichever is appropriate, and before the January 10 request deadline. On the other hand, if a legislator submits four bill requests by the earlier request deadline and later withdraws one of them, the legislator still retains his or her three bill requests that met the early request deadline. In addition, the legislator still can submit the two requests that are allowed after the early bill request deadline — for a total of five bill requests.
* This year every legislator’s first bill must be filed by Friday, December 28, 2018, to be ready for introduction on the first day of the legislative session. Every Senator’s next two early bills must be ready for introduction by the 5th legislative day (Tuesday, January 8), and every Representative’s next two early bills must be ready for introduction by the 8th legislative day (Friday, January 11).
† A legislator can ask permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills, whichever is appropriate, to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill request deadline.
Last spring, in approving the study topics for the 2018 interim, the Legislative Council approved an interim committee to evaluate the findings and recommendations from the 2018 Legislative Workplace Study requested by the Executive Committee in December of 2017. Speaker of the House Crisanta Duran chaired the committee, and Senator Beth Martinez Humenik was the vice chair. The other persons appointed to the committee were Senator Bob Gardner, Senator Dominick Moreno, Representative Kim Ransom, and Representative Faith Winter. The committee met five times over the course of the 2018 interim.
The primary charge of the Legislative Workplace Interim Study Committee (Study Committee) was to make recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council (Executive Committee) regarding the legislative workplace. Specifically, the Study Committee considered changes to the workplace harassment policy set forth in Rule 38 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives, the General Assembly’s workplace harassment policies, and the legislative human resources staffing and structure and looked at ways to promote cultural change regarding harassment in the workplace. Through the five meetings, the Study Committee heard testimony from experts in human resources, workplace harassment, and workplace culture and developed recommendations on each of these issues. Some recommendations were approved unanimously. In other areas, the Study Committee included alternative recommendations for the Executive Committee to consider.
The Study Committee unanimously recommended that an Office of Legislative Workplace Relations (new office), consisting of at least two full-time employees, be established in the Office of Legislative Legal Services. The Study Committee recommended that the new office have locations in both the State Capitol Building and in the Legislative Office Building at 1525 Sherman Street and that the offices have doors opening directly into a public hallway to help maintain the privacy of individuals entering the offices.
The Study Committee also recommended that Joint Rule 38 be amended to require the new office to recommend to the Executive Committee for its adoption a new Workplace Harassment Policy. The Study Committee recommended that the new Workplace Harassment Policy include:
A new anonymous reporting tool, although one member objected to any anonymous complaints;
A requirement that employees of the new office receive complaints under the policy;
An informal complaint resolution process, with a goal of resolving informal complaints within 30 days after the parties agree to the informal process;
A formal complaint resolution process that includes different paths depending on who the complaint is against;
Provisions maintaining confidentiality for parties and witnesses; and
Measures to prevent retaliation against persons involved in an investigation.
The members of the Study Committee proposed different structures for overseeing formal complaints against legislators and partisan staff. Some members recommended a joint committee composed of four legislators—one from each caucus—and three non-legislators. The non-legislative members would be appointed jointly by the leaders of each caucus and would have experience in human resources, victim advocacy, and employment law. Other members recommended establishing separate workplace harassment committees for each chamber consisting of three members from each caucus of the chamber. The committees would include only legislators and could solicit testimony from experts as needed.
The Study Committee made recommendations to amend the Colorado Open Records Act to protect documents related to complaints under the policy and recommended changes to the Open Meetings Law to protect the deliberations of the new workplace harassment committee or committees.
The Study Committee also recommended that the amended Joint Rule 38 direct the new office to develop a Workplace Expectations Policy, which would establish general expectations for a respectful workplace and address complaints related to those expectations. Complaints under this policy would be resolved through an informal complaint process similar to that included in the proposed new Workplace Harassment Policy.
In addition to the new policies, the Study Committee recommended adoption of an interim policy, which would incorporate into the existing workplace policy all recommendations that could be added without making changes to Joint Rule 38. These changes include requiring contacts to alert the human resources administrator to any complaints, allowing the human resources administrator to consult on issues related to workplace harassment, strengthening the anti-retaliation provisions, and clarifying record-keeping obligations.
The Study Committee adopted a report of its recommendations at its final meeting on October 11, 2018. The Executive Committee met on November 8, 2018, and unanimously adopted only the interim policy. The remaining recommendations, which require legislative action through resolutions or bills, will be submitted for consideration by the Executive Committee that consists of the new legislative leadership chosen by the caucuses after the 2018 election. The full report of the Study Committee, including the new interim policy, is available to the public on the Study Committee’s website.
By November 1918, Europe had been at war for four years, the United States had been involved for a little over a year, and Colorado was benefiting from increased wartime demand for agricultural and mining goods. Coal production reached a new high of 12,500,000 tons, and new fields were plowed to produce more wheat. The state industriously mined molybdenum and tungsten, both needed to make high-grade steel armaments for the troops. The Climax mine in Lake and Summit counties was the nation’s greatest source of molybdenum.
Although mining and wheat production dominated Colorado’s economy during the war years, some local manufacturing of steel—in Pueblo—and agricultural products such as sugar beets, alfalfa, livestock, and other grains had begun to take hold. Railroads provided access for Colorado products to markets across the country and even helped an emerging tourism industry. Still there was the war, and in spite of high mining and agricultural production, Colorado like the rest of the country, experienced rising food and fuel prices and supply limits on sugar and wheat. Across the state, Coloradans planted gardens to supplement food supply, with some towns turning playgrounds into gardens. Denver even created a city-owned coal company to try to curb rising coal prices.
Photo courtesy of Denver Public Library Western History/Genealogy Dept.
America’s involvement in World War I (WWI) officially began with its declaration of war on April 6, 1917. Coloradans stepped up through the purchase of Liberty Bonds to lend the U.S. government more than $150 million dollars to help finance the war and sent 42,000 of their citizens to serve in the military. Around 1,500 Coloradans volunteered for military service, and another 4,500 volunteer soldiers came from the recently federalized National Guard. But, as in the rest of the country, the volunteer numbers were not enough, and an additional 36,000 Coloradans were drafted to join the rest of the 2.3 million Americans drafted into military service. Colorado’s population had been just shy of 800,000 in the 1910 census.
There was also the Spanish flu epidemic. The Denver Post first reported a death due to influenza on September 27, 1918. By early 1919, the flu epidemic had killed more than 7,700 people in our state, compared to 1,000 to 1,100 Coloradans who were killed in the war. Most likely, the disease originated in crowded military bases in the United States or France in early 1918. Because of the war, any reports of healthy young service men and women becoming sick and dying from the flu were kept secret. In May, Spain became the first country to report flu deaths and so became the disease’s namesake.
Photo courtesy of Denver Public Library Western History/Genealogy Dept.
In October, Denver quickly ordered schools, churches, and places of amusement closed. Within a couple of weeks, Denver’s Board of Health also banned all meetings indoors or out, social gatherings in homes, and public funerals. The flu spread across Colorado and hit many small towns hard. It’s estimated that 675,000 Americans died of the Spanish Flu. Worldwide, 50 million people or roughly 1 in 30 infected died from the deadly virus. The ensuing large number of claims against life insurance policies skyrocketed, causing many small businesses to go bankrupt and disrupting the economy even further.
Soldiers returning from overseas found warm welcomes but scarce jobs as wartime demand for Colorado products started slowing down. The prices of food and other goods began to rise, but wages did not keep pace with the rising inflation.
As the country marched toward the Tuesday, November 5, 1918, mid-term elections, WWI appeared to be winding down and the deadly influenza pandemic was ramping up. Earlier in the year, national campaigns agreed to downplay partisan differences in order to present a unified political front to the world, but these agreements were unraveling. The social climate of the war and loyalty perceptions may have played a significant role in some election results. The two Colorado incumbent Congressmen who voted against the 1917 war declaration were defeated, playing a part in flipping Congress to a Republican majority.
There were three ballot proposals initiated by the citizens of Colorado:
Bone dry prohibition law.Colorado actually became a “dry” state—no alcohol allowed—in 1916, three years before the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding prohibition was ratified. In 1918, this initiated measure proposed to take prohibition a step further by closing certain loopholes that allowed liquor to be used for medicinal or religious purposes. Prohibitionists were successful in tying support for the additional restrictions to patriotism by condemning the use of the country’s precious grain supplies for the manufacture of alcohol instead of for the war effort. The statutory amendment passed 63% to 36%.
Placing state civil service in the Constitution. Colorado enacted its civil service laws and established a civil services commission in statute in 1907. This initiated measure amended the civil service laws and moved them to the state Constitution. The constitutional amendment passed 64% to 35%.
Relief of adult blind. This initiated measure established a blind benefit commission and a means to provide financial support for needy adults certified as blind. The statutory proposal passed 93% to 6%.
Also, the General Assembly referred two Constitutional amendments to the people for approval:
On the Monday following the election, November 11, 1918, the warring powers signed an armistice treaty to end the fighting in WWI. That morning, Denver health officials lifted the public meeting bans due to the deadly flu epidemic while thousands jammed downtown streets in celebration of Armistice Day. That evening, more than 8,000 people gathered in the municipal auditorium to sing together and listen to speeches. Movie and live theaters reopened that night to huge crowds. Eleven days later, 18 more flu sufferers died and public meetings, religious services, and private parties were once again banned, theaters were closed, and new rules now required people wear gauze masks while shopping.
The Twenty-second Session of the Colorado General Assembly convened at noon on Wednesday, January 1, 1919, to a state in mourning, preparing to care for sick and injured returning soldiers and ready to address lingering public health concerns, increase employment, strengthen the state economy, and pay its debts.
As we shared last week, the Legislative Council met October 15, 2018, to consider interim committee bills recommended by eight of the 12 interim committees that met July through September. Two of the 12 interim committees were not required to submit their recommendations to the Legislative Council; the remaining two committees—the Pension Review Commission and the School Start Time Interim Study Committee—chose not to recommend legislation.
In last week’s article, we reported on the bills approved for four of those committees. Today, we summarize those approved for the remaining four committees.
Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System
The committee for the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System recommended four bills, none of which were approved by the Legislative Council.
To review the bills recommended by the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jane Ritter.
Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force
The Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force held four meetings during the 2018 interim. Briefings and presentations were made by the Office of Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Council Staff, the Colorado Department of Revenue, the Colorado Municipal League, the Council on State Taxation, the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center for State Fiscal Reform, and members of the public on a wide range of topics, including:
The current Colorado sales and use tax system, with an emphasis on use tax;
Other states’ efforts to simplify their sales and use tax system;
The Colorado Municipal League’s standardized definitions project;
A request for information for an electronic sales tax system issued pursuant to House Bill 18-1022; and
Implementation of online sales tax collections following the U.S. Supreme Court South Dakota v. Wayfair decision.
At the final meeting on September 27, 2018, the legislative members of the task force unanimously recommended one bill to the Legislative Council, which the Council approved.
Bill A: Concerning an electronic sales and use tax simplification system, and, in connection therewith, requiring the department of revenue to conduct a sourcing method for the development of the system and establishing the implementation of the system for the acceptance of returns and processing of payments for the sales and use tax levied by the state and any local taxing jurisdictions.
The bill requires the department of revenue (department), within existing resources, to conduct a sourcing method in accordance with the applicable provisions of the procurement code, and any applicable rules, for the development of an electronic sales and use tax simplification system (system). The bill also requires the department to involve stakeholders to develop the scope of work. The bill specifies that on and after the date the system is online, the department is required to accept any returns and payments processed through the system for state sales and use tax and for any sales and use taxes that are collected by the department on behalf of any local taxing jurisdiction. The bill specifies that it is the General Assembly’s intent that a certain number of local taxing jurisdictions with home rule charters voluntarily use the system when the system comes online and that all local taxing jurisdictions with home rule charters voluntarily use the system within a specified number of years.
To review the bill recommended by the Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force, please visit the task force’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Esther van Mourik.
Transportation Legislation Review Committee
The biomass plant had an interesting way to unload trucks.
The Transportation Legislation Review Committee took a two-day tour this year to fulfill its duty to review transportation projects. This involved the following:
Touring the project on Weld county Road 49;
Meeting with stakeholders to discuss the State Highway 402–I-25 interchange;
Reviewing the rebuilding US 34 repair and ground stabilization efforts after flooding washed away much of the road;
Touring the Eagle Valley Biomass Plant;
Reviewing the new overpass in Glenwood Springs;
Touring the Aspen–Pitkin County Airport;
Meeting with the fire command center in Basalt; and
Meeting with the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority.
The committee also met to propose and draft legislation. They ultimately recommended three bills to the Legislative Council, all of which were approved.
Bill A: Concerning the exemption of the department of transportation from existing reporting and transportation commission approval requirements when it acquires land needed for specified highway-related purposes by means other than condemnation.
Current law allows the department of transportation (CDOT) to acquire land in order to alter a state highway only after: (1) the chief engineer of CDOT provides a written report to the transportation commission that describes the project and all land to be acquired for the project, includes a map of the existing and future boundaries of the highway, and estimates the damages and benefits to each affected landowner; and (2) the commission determines that the project will serve public interest or convenience and adopts a resolution authorizing the chief engineer to offer affected landowners appropriate compensation.
The bill authorizes CDOT, acting through the chief engineer, to acquire land in such circumstances by purchase or exchange without the chief engineer providing the report or the commission making a determination of public interest or convenience or authorizing the payment of compensation to affected landowners. If, however, CDOT needs to acquire land through condemnation, the chief engineer must provide the report and the commission must make the determination of public interest or convenience and adopt a resolution authorizing CDOT to acquire the land through the filing of a petition in condemnation.
Bill B: Concerning the age requirement to drive a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce.
The bill authorizes the department of revenue to adopt rules allowing a person who is at least 18 years of age but under 21 years of age to be licensed to drive a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce if operation of a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce by the person is permitted under federal law.
Bill C: Concerning issuance of driving authorization documents to foster children who are under eighteen years of age.
The bill exempts a foster child from being required, when being issued a driver’s license, to have his or her foster parent or other legal guardian sign an affidavit of liability if the child holds evidence of financial responsibility in his or her own name. Under current law, a county must obtain the permission of a foster parent to help a foster child obtain an instruction permit without a responsible adult signing an affidavit of liability, but the county need not obtain this permission if the foster child is at least 17 1/2 years of age. The bill lowers this requirement to age 17. To be issued a driver’s license, current law requires a minor to submit driving logs showing 50 hours of instruction. The bill broadens this to allow any person who is at least 21 years of age and who holds a driver’s license to sign a foster child’s driving logs if the person provided the instruction and the foster child has provided proof of financial responsibility. Current law, with some exceptions, requires a person who is under 16 years of age and who was issued an instruction permit to be instructed in driving by the person who signed the affidavit of liability. The bill authorizes anyone who is at least 21 years of age and who holds a driver’s license to instruct a foster child with a driving permit. The bill directs the department of personnel to create a program that pools insurance of a child who has been in a foster home for at least one year with the insurance on the state fleet to make insurance less expensive for the foster child. The department of personnel must accept and expend gifts, grants, or donations to implement this program.
To review the bills recommended by the Transportation Legislation Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jery Payne or Jason Gelender.
Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission
The Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission met four times from July through October. They received an update from the Early Childhood Leadership Commission, heard reports on program implementation from several state agencies, and took testimony from several community and advocacy groups, concerning issues pertaining to child care and education for young children. The Commission requested that staff draft several bills, two of which were ultimately recommended to the Legislative Council. The Council approved one of those two bills.
Bill A: Concerning supporting high school students’ interest in early childhood education through the teacher cadet program
The bill clarifies that high school students who are interested in early childhood education may participate in the teacher cadet program.
To review the bills recommended by the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission, please visit the commission’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Brita Darling.
crossed the Great Plains from the Missouri River to Denver along the Smoky Hill Trail. The trail, although more dangerous than other prairie trails, became the principal route for prospectors seeking fortune during the Colorado Gold Rush of 1859.
As news of the gold found along the Cherry Creek quickly spread, would-be prospectors began traversing the country to seek their fortunes. There was, however, no official route connecting the East to Denver. The westernmost traveling point at that time was one of the jumping off points for the Oregon Trail in Salina (about 175 miles southwest of Leavenworth, Kansas). Prior to the Colorado gold rush, those traveling west would turn North or South to their destination in order to avoid the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains. To shorten the route from Kansas towns to Denver, frontiersmen began using an old Native American buffalo hunting trail along the Smoky Hill River.
