Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Tips for an Effective Legislator

    by Gwynne Middleton

    By the time legislators reach the hallowed halls of the State Capitol, they have mastered many important leadership skills that will serve them well in working with constituents, staff, and other elected officials to improve the lives of Coloradans through their policy decisions. Still, in the midst of a fast-paced legislative session, it’s easier than you’d think for what seems like a minor misstep to undermine a legislator’s ability to achieve his or her legislative goals. Below are 15 important tips shared from the National Conference of State Legislatures to help our senators and representatives legislate like champs.

    1. Honor the Institution

    To succeed in its goal to serve its citizens, government requires trust between citizens and their representatives. Appeal to the best interests of the electorate, represent your constituents’ needs, focus on your values and what you want to do while in office, and direct your energy toward fulfilling those promises. You ran for office to make a positive difference in Colorado. Don’t lose sight of the vision you have for making that difference.

    2. Take the High Road

    In matters of public trust, appearances matter. Government thrives on ethical transparency. Perfectly legal actions can still look fishy to the public. Since public officials are held to higher standards than average citizens, avoiding situations that carry the appearance of impropriety will encourage public confidence in your legislative work. For the sake of the General Assembly and your career in public service, understand Colorado’s ethics codes and adhere to them.

    3. Master the Rules

    It’s no easy feat to become an expert on intricate legislative process rules, but the more adept you are at knowing the rules, the better you’ll be able to participate in the process, helping yourself and your constituents be heard. The most effective way to learn your legislative chamber’s rules is through application. Don’t be afraid to keep your rules book nearby so that you can call upon them when you’re unclear about a particular legislative process.

    4. Know Where to Find Help

    From fellow legislators and legislative staff to the folks in the governor’s office and the executive branch agencies, your political community is your best resource for gathering nuanced information about an issue. Setting aside just 20 to 30 minutes before a committee meeting to review bills on the agenda with legislative staff will help you bring your A-game to committee discussions.

    5. Manage Your Time

    Stay organized, prioritize what’s most important to accomplish, meet deadlines, and only commit to what you consider important. It’s easy to overcommit in an environment where numerous stakeholders are jockeying for your attention. If you tend to be a “yes” person, be careful and protective of your time. It’s limited, and if you’re overcommitted, you won’t be able to do your best work as you juggle the overwhelming schedule. Instead of giving attention to that which you care most deeply about, you’ll spread yourself thin and wind up disappointed.

    Managing your time is also about punctuality. If you’re flying by the seat of your pants because of multiple commitments, your punctuality may suffer, creating an unprofessional appearance. People won’t take you seriously if they feel that you aren’t on top of your game, and in some cases, being late to meetings will cause your colleagues and constituents to believe you don’t respect their time.

    6. Develop a Specialty

    Your time as a legislator is limited. Develop a legislative agenda that’s not only rooted in your personal background, previous experiences, and policy expertise but tightly focused on your district’s needs. By cultivating a policy focus during your tenure, you can become the member others seek out for expertise. The kicker? You’ll practice valuable negotiation skills and gain the reputation of being a serious, committed lawmaker whom people will clamor to support.

    7. Vote your Conscience

    It’s not always an easy choice to vote your conscience, especially on controversial issues when your belief conflicts with constituents who voted for you to represent them or if a campaign contributor tries to sway your vote. After gathering information from all sides, vote as you see fit, but be prepared to explain your votes to constituents. By communicating with your constituents about the reason behind your position, you create an environment of transparency, and transparency has been proven to increase trust. Even if they don’t agree with your decision, they’ll be in a better position to respect you for the decision you made.

    8. Don’t Burn Bridges

    Be open to compromise, even with those who may not be natural allies. Create a broad set of associates, even beyond your chamber. Maintain a professional demeanor and keep emotions in check. Even if a colleague doesn’t like you, you’ll earn respect for being level-headed.

    9. Keep Your Word

    You’re only as effective as your reputation. Your colleagues rely on your credibility. Make only promises you can keep. While the best way to keep your word is to not commit until you have all the facts, if you learn information that would change your vote, be transparent about why you need to change your vote to prevent hard feelings.

    10. Be Careful What You Agree to

    To keep your word, it’s important to avoid casually agreeing to cosponsor bills that you aren’t invested in. Sometimes you may have to vote against a bill that you’ve agreed to sign on to sponsor. Before agreeing to be sponsor, give yourself 24 hours to make sure you understand the bill. Just because you like a person and usually trust that person’s views doesn’t mean you’ll always agree. If the sponsor of the bill cares deeply about your support of their bill, they will wait a day for your decision.

    11. Don’t Hog the Mike

    Even if you’re an expert on every bill that’s up for debate, be selective about which bills you discuss before the chamber. If you’re always in the well speaking on every bill, you risk diminishing your power as a speaker. Quality should always win out over quantity in public speaking. By being judicious about your mic time, when you do speak, your colleagues will be more likely to listen when you step into the limelight.

    12. Stay in Touch with Your Constituents

    Always remember the people who elected you. Hire the aides who are best able to help you maintain strong contact with your constituents.

    13. Be a Problem Solver

    Rather than getting caught up in the drama that often accompanies controversial issues, use your skills and your office to help your community focus on solutions. Work with state agencies and local governments to find a solution that will benefit the most people in your community.

    14. Work with the Media

    Reporters care deeply about their responsibility to keep their viewers informed with factually accurate news. Reach out regularly to reporters to share your position on issues, but be sure to focus on the policy process and the issues rather than only on partisan differences and conflict. Make your information easy to understand and use, and, when the media does a good job of reporting fairly, remember to acknowledge that good work.

    15. Self-care and Presence

    The weighty responsibilities and accolades that accompany holding public office can be unhealthy substitutes for intimacy, fellowship, and taking care of yourself and the people you care about. The attention of others is no substitute for an interior life. Maintaining an interior life will help you feel more at ease during the times in life when professional commitments can pull you in many directions.

  • Missouri Tires – Colorado Schools

    by Brita Darling

    Will the decision in a dispute concerning rubber playground surfaces in Missouri affect where students go to school in Douglas County, Colorado?

    The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc., v. Pauley, No. 15-577, on April 19, 2017. While the Supreme Court has declined to hear many religion cases in the recent past, it agreed to hear this case before Justice Scalia’s death.

    Like many churches, Trinity Lutheran runs a preschool on church grounds and, like any good preschool, it has a playground. After school hours and on weekends, children from the surrounding community use the playground. In 2012, Trinity Lutheran learned about the State of Missouri Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant Program—we’ll just call it the grant program—which provides grants to certain nonprofit organizations to purchase rubber pour-in-place playground surfaces made from recycled tires. The purpose of the grant program is to make playgrounds safer, while at the same time reducing the amount of used tires in landfills and illegal dump sites in Missouri. A fee on new tires funds the program.

    Hoping to replace its playground’s pea gravel surface, Trinity Lutheran submitted a grant application to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and was identified as a strong candidate for a grant based upon neutral grant program criteria. However, instead of receiving a grant, Trinity Lutheran received a letter from the DNR informing it that the department was unable to provide direct financial assistance to churches pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri’s Constitution states that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion… .” If this language prohibiting direct or indirect aid to churches sounds familiar, it should. Colorado’s Constitution includes nearly identical language.[1]  Both Missouri’s and Colorado’s constitutional provisions are referred to as “Blaine Amendments,” after U.S. Representative James Blaine, who proposed a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1875 that included similar language. Most states that entered the Union after 1850 have Blaine Amendment provisions in their state constitutions. Many historians believe that the purpose of the Blaine Amendments was to prohibit funding to sectarian schools, reflecting the anti-Catholic sentiment of the times. These provisions are also referred to as “super-Establishment Clause” provisions because courts have interpreted them to permit stronger prohibitions on government aid to churches than are required by the federal Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making a law concerning the establishment of a religion.

    Some people argue, however, that application of the Blaine Amendments in some cases actually violates another clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—the Free Exercise clause—which prohibits any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    Trinity Lutheran sued in the U.S. District Court in Missouri, claiming that the DNR’s decision to deny a program grant to the church preschool violated the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Equal Protection, and Establishment Clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, as well as violating Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution.  Trinity Lutheran’s lawsuit does not seek a ruling that Missouri’s Blaine Amendment is unconstitutional on its face, but only as applied to the church to prohibit its participation in the grant program.

    The district court dismissed Trinity Lutheran’s complaint in its entirety, reasoning that the grant program involved a direct payment to a sectarian institution that raised “antiestablishment” concerns. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, furthering a split among the federal and state courts that have dealt with similar cases, with the First and Fifth Circuits and the Colorado Supreme Court on one side and the Seventh and Tenth Circuits on the other. The split involves whether state establishment clause provisions, like Blaine Amendments, can justify the exclusion of religious groups from generally available government programs.

    The resolution of the split among the courts seems to hinge upon the correct interpretation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004). In Locke, the Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could deny an otherwise neutral scholarship to a student who was pursuing a devotional theology degree. Critical to the Supreme Court’s holding was that the scholarship would be used to fund the devotional training of clergy, an area where the state’s antiestablishment concerns are historically high. The Supreme Court held that denying funding for theology degrees fell within the “play in the joints” between what the Establishment Clause allows and what the Free Exercise Clause requires.

    So, how much “play in the joints” is there?  The question the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve in Trinity Lutheran is “whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.” Unlike the facts in Locke, where the state refused to pay to train clergy, in this case, no one can argue that providing safe playground surfaces promotes any religious purpose whatsoever. Further, Missouri’s intention to improve child safety and reduce waste tires in landfills is fully realized by awarding a grant to Trinity Lutheran in addition to nonreligious preschools. Trinity Lutheran argues that while Locke involved the historical establishment clause concern of the state funding the training of clergy, Locke does not permit the categorical exclusion of religious groups from generally available secular benefits, like the safer playground surfaces at issue here, or other secular services, such as fire or police protection.

    So what does this Missouri playground case have to do with where children attend school in Douglas County, Colorado? We’ll see. In 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court decided Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District, 2015 CO 50. As explained in a previous LegiSource article, the court held that the Douglas County School District’s Choice Scholarship Program could not award scholarships directly to students who then enroll in private religious schools. The Douglas County School District has filed for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court[2] and, although briefing on the writ concluded at the beginning of this year, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case. Colorado’s Blaine Amendment and the correct interpretation of Locke are pivotal issues in the Colorado case, however, and commentators believe that the Supreme Court could use Trinity Lutheran as its vehicle to announce a decision that will have a conclusive effect on the Colorado case, as well. To that end, Douglas County, the State of Colorado, and many others interested in the Douglas County decision, have filed amicus briefs to ensure that its arguments are before the Supreme Court during its deliberations in Trinity Lutheran.

    The Trinity Lutheran case is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on April 19. Court watchers are waiting to see if Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is confirmed in time for the April sitting. If not, this case could end on a 4-4 tie vote, which would leave standing the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    [1] Article IX, Section 7. Aid to private schools, churches, sectarian purpose, forbidden.  Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose. [Emphases added]

    [2] Douglas Cnty. School Dist. v. Taxpayers for Public Education, No. 15-777 (Cert. filed Oct. 28, 2015).

  • Happy Birthday, Colorado Independent Ethics Commission!

    by Jennifer Gilroy

    Ten years ago voters in Colorado approved a citizen-initiated measure—Ethics in Government—aimed at enhancing the public’s confidence and preserving the public’s trust in government officials and employees by imposing gift bans on state and local government officials and employees, limiting gift-giving by professional lobbyists, and restricting certain public officials’ post-public-service employment.  Effective December 31, 2006, the measure became Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution, but among those folks who are subject to its ambitious restrictions, it is simply referred to as “Amendment 41,” the number it bore on the 2006 ballot. We hear and read a lot about Amendment 41’s gift bans, but far less about another essential component of Amendment 41: the “independent ethics commission,” also established by the measure and now celebrating its 10th birthday.

    Intended to be completely independent of all three branches of government, the independent ethics commission, or IEC, is composed of 5 volunteer members, one each appointed by the Colorado Senate, the Colorado House of Representatives, the Colorado Governor, and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.  These 4 commissioners appoint the final member of the commission, who must be a local government official or employee. The constitution contemplates that the commissioners serve staggered 4-year terms. But over the IEC’s short history, at least one commissioner served a shorter duration—departing after just 6 months of service—and another served more than 4 years until her successor was selected and appointed.  Not surprisingly, finding a qualified individual willing to serve for free on a commission that meets at least monthly and that undertakes the thankless work of investigating complaints against public officials and government employees can be challenging for the appointing authorities.  To further complicate matters, but more importantly to preserve bipartisanship, Amendment 41 directs that not more than two commissioners may be affiliated with the same political party.  This June the terms of both the state Senate’s appointee and the Governor’s appointee will expire, and the composition of the commission will change once again.

    The IEC is charged with hearing complaints against public officers and other state and local government officials and employees who are alleged to have violated the terms of Amendment 41 or some other standard of conduct or reporting requirement established in law.  Discerning which of those standards and reporting requirements the commission has jurisdiction to enforce, however, is not a simple task, as the commission has already learned.  The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Gessler vs. Grossman, et al, 15SC462, (see p. 8) to address this very issue.

    As part of the complaint process, the IEC must issue findings and assess penalties (Amendment 41 authorizes fines that are double the amount of any benefits realized as a result of wrongdoing) if the commission determines that the public official or employee has breached the public trust for private gain.  However, individuals whose conduct is under the IEC’s scrutiny may find that the public nature of the process is more punitive than the threat of any penalty.  The IEC’s proceedings are subject to the Colorado Sunshine (open meetings) Law and the Colorado Open Records Act.  Also, public interest groups typically attend the IEC’s meetings and tweet highlights of the commission’s discussions.  And the IEC is currently working to begin live audio broadcasting of its proceedings in real time.

    But the IEC has an equally, if not more, important role as an advisor, consultant, and instructor on ethics-related matters.  The constitutional amendment directs the IEC to provide advice to individuals who are subject to Amendment 41 and are facing ethics dilemmas arising under the amendment or another standard of conduct or reporting requirement.  Over the years, the IEC has issued dozens (approximately 124 to date) of topic-specific opinions to help guide the behavior and conduct of public officials and employees.  Included in these opinions are many position statements that the IEC has periodically issued in an effort to alleviate uncertainty and provide its interpretation of the sometimes confusing and often ambiguous language of Amendment 41.

    Anyone who is interested in requesting an advisory opinion from the IEC must realize that timing is critical.  Submissions must comply with the IEC’s internal procedural rules, which require that requests be in writing and delivered to the IEC at least 10 days before its next meeting.  In most circumstances, the IEC will issue its opinion within 30 to 60 days after receiving the request.

    The IEC also conducts helpful public outreach.  It has published an Ethics Handbook and the executive director of the IEC—the commission’s only paid staff—has historically conducted training for government agencies and offices.

    Happy Birthday, IEC!

  • CCUSL Recommends Five Uniform Acts for Introduction in 2017

    by Thomas Morris

    The Uniform Laws Commission (ULC) consists of commissioners appointed by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The ULC meets each year to consider and promote laws that could become more uniform. Colorado’s delegation to the ULC, the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws (CCUSL), may recommend bills for introduction during a legislative session that are exempt from the five-bill limit imposed on legislators. Serving as commissioners for 2017-18 are Senator Robert Gardner, Claire Levy, Anne McGihon, Brandon Shaffer, Pat Steadman, and Representative Cole Wist.

    The CCUSL meets each year at the annual summer ULC conference to adopt a preliminary agenda for consideration by the Colorado General Assembly at its next legislative session. In addition, the CCUSL typically hosts one or more open meetings at the State Capitol to discuss proposed legislation and to finalize its legislative agenda. CCUSL meetings are posted on the CCUSL website and are open to the public. For more information on the ULC and CCUSL please see this series of LegiSource articles from 2015, posted on Aug. 6, Sept. 17, and Nov. 5.

    At its November 18, 2016, and January 27, 2017, meetings, CCUSL voted to introduce the following five bills as its 2017 legislative agenda:

    • SB 17-023, Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act. This act, which would have repealed and reenacted Colorado’s law regulating athlete agents, was postponed indefinitely by the Senate committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs on January 25, 2017.
    • SB 17-131, Uniform Wage Garnishment Act. Current law governing the garnishment of earnings is a mix of statutory law, covering both employees and independent contractors, and case law. The act codifies the law governing the garnishment of employees’ earnings.
    • SB 17-132, Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts. The bill facilitates electronic records; promotes uniformity among state laws regarding notarial acts; enhances the integrity of the notarial process; and provides for the recognition of notarial acts performed in this state, in other states, under the authority of a federally recognized Indian tribe, under federal authority, and in foreign jurisdictions. The bill postpones the sunset review of the notaries law from July 1, 2018, to September 1, 2022.
    • SB 17-154, Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act. Current law allows an unsworn declaration that has been signed under penalty of perjury by a person outside of the United States to be used in a state court. The bill allows the use in a state court of an unsworn declaration regardless of the location of the person who signed the declaration.
    • Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (to be introduced later in session). This act would repeal and reenact Colorado’s law that governs how holders of unclaimed property must account for the property when that property is deemed to be abandoned and how the proceeds must be distributed.

    The CCUSL’s next meeting is scheduled to occur during the ULC annual meeting in San Diego, which will take place July 14 to 20, 2017.

    Information about uniform acts, drafting projects, committees, meetings, and legislation is available on the ULC website.

    For information on Colorado’s ULC connection, visit CCUSL’s website.

    You can subscribe to the CCUSL mailing list to receive e-mail notifications about CCUSL meetings and upcoming meeting agendas.

  • A Legislator’s Guide to Creating Cash Funds

    by Ed DeCecco

    “How do I love thee [cash funds]? Let me count the ways.” Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnet 43

    Ms. Browning may not have written her sonnet about the Colorado General Assembly’s affection for cash funds, but if she’d seen how many cash funds exist in the Colorado Revised Statutes, she might have been tempted to do so.

    While I’m no poet, I can count. So let me count the ways that the Colorado General Assembly creates the cash funds that it loves and, along the way, include a brief description and my thoughts on each.

    One. Cash funds created for fee revenue.

    Sometimes a program or particular service will be funded with a fee that is deposited into a cash fund. For example, the fees charged to enter a state park are deposited in the parks and outdoor recreation cash fund, and that money is appropriated to the Division of Parks and Wildlife in the Department of Natural Resources for state park operations.

    This is an instance when a cash fund is critical. If there was no cash fund, then the fee revenue would be deposited into the general fund and used to pay for general government services, instead of the particular program for which it was created. Not only would the program lack funding—oops!—but the fee would lose an essential characteristic that distinguishes it from a tax. Presuming that it was created without prior voter approval, that could raise a constitutional issue. (Hint: The provision rhymes with “neighbor.”)

    Two. Cash funds created for gifts, grants, or donations.

    As an alternative to creating a fee, the general assembly may empower a department to accept and expend gifts, grants, or donations to be used for a particular purpose, and that money will be deposited into a cash fund. These gifts for a designated purpose are a type of money called custodial funds. Custodial funds are not money that a person earns while incarcerated, but rather, as the Colorado Supreme Court explained in Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, they are “funds not generated by tax revenues which are given to the state for particular purposes and of which the state is a custodian or trustee to carry out the purposes for which the sums have been provided.”

    So, if an individual gave the state $1,000,000 for Ed. funding, that money cannot be deposited into the general fund and used to pay for the general operations of the state. Instead the department is required to give it to me or other men named Ed, or, perhaps, use it for the less-fun, but worthier purpose of funding a particular education program. In either case, the money will be separately accounted for, and the department will only be permitted to spend it for designated purposes. Also, unlike state money, custodial funds are not subject to appropriation and are typically excluded from state fiscal year spending under TABOR. With all of these considerations, there is no reason to create a cash fund just for your gifts, grants, and donations, other than to reiterate a clever program name.

    Three. Cash funds created to spend general fund revenue.

    Many times a new program will be created without specifying a particular source of funding. In these instances, the likely place from which the money will be paid is the general fund. But instead of appropriating the money directly from the general fund, sometimes the money is transferred or appropriated to a cash fund and then appropriated to the department for the intended purpose. Maybe there is a reason for this funding two-step, such as setting aside money from the current year to be used in future years, but often I can’t tell what it is.

    Unfortunately, this mechanism obscures how state money is being used (and gives our accountants headaches). If the money is transferred to the cash fund, the money will appear in the annual appropriations bill under the cash funds appropriation column, even though it is actually general fund revenue. Or there may need to be two appropriations in the annual appropriations bill: an appropriation from the general fund to a cash fund and then an appropriation of reappropriated funds from the cash fund to grant the department the authority to spend the money. Given that you’ve probably glazed over just reading my description of how this works, you would likely agree that it would be much more straightforward and transparent to directly appropriate the money from the general fund and skip the cash fund in this instance.

    Four. Cash funds created to spend fees; gifts, grants, or donations; and general fund revenue.

    Often a program will be primarily funded by fees that are deposited into a fund, but the cash fund will also include gifts, grants, or donations and any other money that the general assembly may appropriate or transfer to the fund. I can’t decide if this is a result of bill drafters being thorough or if it indicates the optimistic nature of legislators. Either way, I’m not sure how often the public or the joint budget committee exercises its power to supplement the fee revenue. A cash fund is still appropriate in this case because of the fee revenue. Keep in mind, though, that gifts, grants, or donations are not subject to appropriation, and, therefore, the authority to spend the fee revenue should differ from the gifts, grants, or donations.

    Five. Cash funds created for taxes.

    While taxes are generally designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of government, it has always been somewhat fashionable to treat our state taxes like fees by crediting the tax revenue to a cash fund and then limiting the uses. This may be done to comply with the initiated or referred measure (for example, the tobacco tax cash fund was created to facilitate the constitutionally mandated distribution of the tobacco taxes created by Amendment 35) or because the underlying activity being taxed seems to demand that the derivative revenue be used accordingly (for example, a portion of severance taxes are deposited in the local government severance tax fund). In these instances, which are relatively infrequent, a cash fund may be necessary for administrative reasons.

    So, there you have it, five ways the general assembly creates cash funds. And while it is always fun for us bill drafters to create one, perhaps they could be created less often when they are not legally necessary. To help remind you of this, I’d like to conclude this article with a little poem. (While I said I’m not a poet, I’m not afraid to compose a doggerel verse or two.)

    Roses are red, violets are blue, cash funds are awesome, but maybe we should have less of ’em.

  • Federal Tax Reform Proposals Trigger State Tax Policy Implications

    by Esther van Mourik

    NCSL hosted its 2016 Capitol Forum in Washington, D.C., the week of December 5, 2016. The Capitol Forum is one of the two annual meetings that NCSL hosts for the legislators and legislative staff of the states, the District of Columbia, and the territories and commonwealths of the United States. The other meeting is the Legislative Summit, which will take place this year in Boston, MA, August 6-9. The Capitol Forum focuses on the work of the nine NCSL standing committees:

    • Budgets and Revenues;
    • Communications, Financial Services and Interstate Commerce;
    • Education;
    • Health and Human Services;
    • Labor and Economic Development;
    • Law, Criminal Justice and Public Safety;
    • Legislative Effectiveness;
    • Natural Resources and Infrastructure; and
    • Redistricting and Elections.

    The NCSL standing committees are important to the organization’s assistance to legislatures on state issues and its representation of state interests in Washington, D.C.

    Much of the work during the Capitol Forum consists of training incoming legislative and staff officers for their duties to their respective NCSL standing committees. NCSL standing committee officers have a variety of responsibilities, including planning the committees’ agenda for the year, suggesting program topics and speakers, reviewing proposed policy directives (long-standing statements on issues that must be reviewed every four years) and resolutions (statements targeted to specific pieces of legislation or other federal mandates that expire every legislative summit, but must have a basis in a policy directive), presiding over programs, and participating in meetings. Any state legislator can submit policy directives or resolutions for a committee’s consideration. Legislative staff does not vote on any of the policy directives or resolutions in order to maintain our nonpartisan responsibilities. As a newly appointed staff co-chair for the Budgets and Revenues Committee, I attended the meeting to learn what it means to be a staff co-chair and I also sat in on many discussions regarding budgeting, taxation, and revenue issues, particularly related to the plans of incoming congressional legislative leaders and the executive branch administration.

    State Implications of Federal Tax Reform

    From the Budgets and Revenues perspective, the most relevant topic to Colorado was a presentation on state implications of federal tax reform. While trying to understand what’s happening in Washington, D.C., is a bit like reading the tea leaves, the presenters, Helen Hecht, chief counsel of the Multistate Tax Commission (of which Colorado is a member state), and Joe Crosby, of Multistate Associates (a D.C. lobbying firm), both have considerable insight and expertise in this area. The central message of the discussion was that states need to pay attention to whatever tax reform is passed by Congress. This is because most states, including Colorado, piggy-back their income tax laws to the federal tax code, so federal tax reform could have a wide-ranging effect on Colorado’s revenue projections.

    There are many options being discussed as part of a federal tax reform package including lowering the tax rates; broadening the base by eliminating many tax deductions and credits and capping interest deductions; dealing with the repatriation of foreign earnings; and moving from a “worldwide” system of taxation to a “territorial” system. In the current political climate this list of examples ranges from easiest to hardest. Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R – Wis.) tax reform plan is detailed here. However, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has told business leaders that the Senate will work on its own tax reform plan rather than waiting for the House plan to pass and that it will “almost surely end up looking different than what passes in the House.” President Trump set forth his own tax reform plan during the campaign that is detailed here.

    Broadening the federal tax base by eliminating federal tax deductions and credits would probably mean an increase in Colorado’s income tax revenues. That in turn could necessitate a review of Colorado’s tax laws to see whether Colorado should adopt all the federal base-broadening changes (e.g., state tax credits based on federal tax credits) or lower state rates. These policy decisions are made more difficult when considered in conjunction with TABOR’s effects.

    Tax experts also mention that it is not clear how capping the interest expense deductions will work or what the general effect will be on how a business is financed.

    States may not be directly affected if there is an effort to repatriate foreign earnings, but studies of the 2004 repatriation “holiday” show that more may need to be done to ensure that repatriated money is actually used to grow the domestic economy.

    Finally, the effort to move from a “worldwide” system of taxation to a “territorial” system is very complicated and best left to the experts. Suffice it to say, there would probably need to be some state income tax law revisions to consider if such a substantial tax reform were to pass.

    Because of the wide-ranging effect of the federal tax reform proposals on Colorado, and on other states, NCSL is keeping a keen eye on what happens on the hill and will continue to share that knowledge with state legislators and state legislative staff in a timely manner in order to assist our efforts in balancing and passing the state budget.

  • The Legislative Branch Policy on Services for Persons with Disabilities Gets a Technology Facelift

    by Jennifer Gilroy and Bart Miller

    It’s hard to believe that it has been more than a quarter of a century (26 years to be exact) since Congress enacted the federal “Americans with Disabilities Act” (ADA). Since shortly after that time, the Colorado General Assembly has had a policy in place regarding services available for persons with disabilities to facilitate participation in the legislative process. The General Assembly created the policy to comply with the ADA and the terms of the final settlement of a lawsuit brought in 1993 by persons with disabilities to enforce the ADA within the Colorado Capitol.

    The original “Legislative Branch Policy on Services to the Disabled to Provide Access to Programs, Services, and Activities of the Colorado General Assembly” included access to qualified interpreters, legislative staff note takers, legislative staff readers, cassette tape recordings of proceedings, and floppy computer diskettes of legislative materials, among other things. In addition to the specifics in the policy, the General Assembly implemented 17 items agreed to in the settlement of the ADA lawsuit. These items included: The installation of ramps compliant with federal law and video screens in the House and Senate antechambers (and the installation of a permanent lift to the Senate lobby following the 1994 legislative session); the availability of written legislative materials in braille upon notice; a TDD phone (telecommunication device for persons who are deaf that provides text communication over a telephone line) on the second floor of the Capitol; a van parking space in the parking circle around the Capitol; lower hooks on the public coat racks; companion gallery seating for persons in wheelchairs; “knobbles” (rubbery covers for doorknobs) for public doorways that would not otherwise remain open; and lower counters in the bill room and staff agency offices. The policy was later modified in 1998 and again in 2003, but it has not been modified or updated in the past 13 years…until now!

    When legislative staff reviewed the policy during the 2016 interim, they immediately noticed outdated terminology and technology. The title of the policy itself, for example, seemed inappropriate by today’s standards.  And several of the services outlined in the body of the policy were equally outdated. Consider how much technology has changed — even your own personal use technology — in the last 13 years, let alone the last 23 years!  When was the last time you made an audio recording on a cassette tape? Would you even have a way to play a cassette tape these days?  The most recent automobile cassette deck option dates back to 2010. Automobile manufacturers have not installed them in models since that year.  Or what about floppy diskettes? Right? Clearly the policy needed dusting off and updating. But not only was the policy dated in terms of the terminology and technology, it also failed to include new technology that makes access to the legislative process easier for persons with disabilities.

    So over the course of the 2016 interim, staff from the Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council Staff undertook a modernization of the policy. Legislative staff will still arrange for qualified interpreters, including those who do tactile signing. Assisted listening devices using radio frequency are now readily available, and Legislative Council Staff can arrange for communication access real-time translation (CART) services for an individual’s use.  Of course today audio recordings of all of the legislative proceedings (real-time and archived) are available on the General Assembly’s website and video recordings of House and Senate proceedings are also available. No need for a staff person to take notes or make a cassette recording anymore! While braille translation is still available upon request, this is a very rare occurrence since most individuals who are blind or visually impaired now have other technology that assists them in reading digital formats of legislative materials.

    The new “Legislative Branch Policy on Services for Persons with Disabilities to Provide Access to Official Proceedings of the Colorado General Assembly” is now featured on the General Assembly’s newly launched website.

  • Creating an Enterprise Pursuant to TABOR – Part 2

    by Esther van Mourik

    This week we are continuing our discussion about the definition of an “enterprise” under TABOR. If you missed Part 1 of our discussion, please click here for that article.

    Part 2

    Part 1 focused on the definition of an enterprise and what kinds of activities might qualify as enterprises. But might there be a time when the activity of an entity is too tenuous to qualify as a business? The 2015 and 2016 debates around the hospital provider fee are illustrative of the difficulty in determining what a government-owned business really is.

    The hospital provider fee was established in 2009 under the Health Care Affordability Act of 2009. This act requires Colorado hospitals to pay a fee to the state, which, when added to certain state funds, is then matched through a federal government program. The fee is combined with federal money and the total amount ($805 million dollars in FY 2015-16) is distributed back to Colorado hospitals as compensation for health care services provided to individuals covered by Medicaid. The fees paid by the state hospitals are currently counted as state budget year revenue under TABOR and count toward the state’s budget year revenue limit. Because state revenue has been forecasted to exceed the limit, some have proposed creating an enterprise to collect the hospital provider fee. Removing the fee revenue from the calculation of the state’s budget year revenue, would allow the state to collect other revenues without exceeding its TABOR limit while still ensuring that the hospitals can receive state and federal moneys for the provision of Medicaid services.

    At the time the hospital provider fee enterprise was first proposed, no new statute had been written or court decision rendered about the definition of an enterprise since the Colorado Bridge Enterprise or CBE decision. As a result of the debates over the proposal, several new opinions are now available regarding the matter, one from the Office of Legislative Legal Services (Office), one from practitioners in this legal area, and one from the Colorado Attorney General.

    Our Office’s opinion, dated December 31, 2015, states that, while legislation enacted by the General Assembly is presumed constitutional, an enterprise created only to charge and collect the hospital provider fee is not a business for purposes of enterprise status under TABOR. The conclusion hinges on the fact that all the entity would be doing is collecting money to leverage and obtain more money from the federal government. If that is all the entity would be doing, there would be no “fee for service” because there is no real service being provided. The opinion also relies on there being no private sector analogue for paying a fee in order to leverage that fee to seek matching federal money for Medicaid services.

    Not everyone agreed with our Office’s conclusion. Trey Rogers of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, LLP, and Jon Anderson of Holland & Hart, LLP, issued their own opinion on February 11, 2016, concluding that since the fee is collected to access a program that helps hospitals defray the costs of providing medical services to Coloradans who could not otherwise afford to pay for health care, there is a “fee for service” and the activity qualifies as a business. They further argue there is no requirement for a private sector analogue after the CBE decision and, even so, the service provided by the entity would be similar to services provided by insurance and investment brokers to the private sector. The hospitals paying the hospital provider fee are paying the entity their money in exchange for access to greater returns, the increased amount of federal money available to reimburse the hospitals for the provision of Medicaid services.

    On February 29, 2016, Attorney General Cynthia Coffman released her opinion on the matter, concluding that a hospital provider fee enterprise would survive a constitutional challenge. First, she points to the enactment of the hospital provider fee as a fee, not a tax, thus ensuring the entity does not have the power to tax, something the Nicholl decision held to be inconsistent with the characteristics of a business. Second, the Attorney General argues that the fee pays for services that reduce the amount of uncompensated care hospitals are exposed to. Finally, she points out that the entity would be financially distinct from its parent government, a fact that both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals found important in their respective Nicholl and CBE decisions.

    While the hospital provider fee enterprise debate was continuing, the General Assembly created a new enterprise in 2016. Senate Bill 16-115 creates an electronic recording technology board, which is allowed to impose an electronic filing surcharge when someone records a document with a county clerk and recorder. This fee is to be used to develop and modernize electronic filing systems throughout the state. As stated earlier, legislation passed by the General Assembly is presumed constitutional. But, what is the fee for service here? A better filing system? Fewer headaches when recording deeds? Being able to electronically access recorded documents? It’s not really clear what specific service patrons recording documents with county clerks and recorders will be getting for this additional surcharge, but it’s arguably an activity conducted in the pursuit of a benefit.

    Taking all of these opinions, the newly created electronic recording technology enterprise, and the presumption of constitutionality, where do things stand on the definition of an enterprise for purposes of TABOR? We’re still not absolutely certain, and the analysis has clearly evolved over the past 24 years. Each proposed enterprise needs to be considered in light of the relevant court decisions, legal opinions, and examples of existing enterprises. Members of the General Assembly are encouraged to contact the Office to discuss whether a particular activity may appropriately be characterized as an enterprise under TABOR.

    As a final tool to assist you, the Office has developed this relatively simple flow chart to help determine whether an activity could be designated as an enterprise:

  • Creating an Enterprise Pursuant to TABOR

    by Esther van Mourik

    While the Legislative Council’s December Economic Forecast highlighted improvements in economic gains, it also stated that this optimism is tempered by global economic uncertainty, indicating that the outlook still shows a heightened downside risk. It also laid out the budget realities for the Colorado General Assembly as it begins the 2017 session: “Assuming the $169.2 million shortfall in FY 2016-17 is addressed by reducing the required reserve, revenue will exceed the amount required to maintain the same level of appropriations in FY 2017-18 as is currently budgeted for FY 2016-17 by $215.7 million, or 2.1 percent.”

    The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, is a Colorado constitutional provision added by an initiative approved by voters in 1992 that contains tax, revenue, and debt limitations. If a district, including the state, brings in revenue above its limit, as the state did in the 2014-15 budget year, it must refund those excess revenues in the next fiscal year. The December forecast shows that the state is currently projected to exceed the limit again in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 budget years, prompting estimated TABOR refunds of $279.4 million in budget year 2018-19 and $287.2 million in budget year 2019-20. Those refunds are made from the general fund, thereby diverting dollars that would otherwise be available to pay for programs.

    The possibility of TABOR refunds raises the reality that the Office of Legislative Legal Services (Office) will see more bill requests proposing a variety of approaches to retain excess revenues. One such approach that many are talking about is creating an enterprise in order to classify certain governmental activities outside of the requirements of TABOR.

    TABOR applies to all “districts,” which are defined to include the state or any local government, excluding “enterprises.” This means that an enterprise is exempt from the limitations imposed by TABOR, including TABOR’s revenue limit that restricts how much revenue a district can bring in each budget year. If an enterprise generates revenue, that revenue is not counted as part of a district’s budget year revenue for purposes of the district’s revenue limit. Creating an enterprise to classify certain governmental activities outside of TABOR before a year in which revenues are anticipated to exceed the limit, requiring TABOR refunds, has the effect of reducing, if not eliminating, the projected refunds.

    Although enterprises are getting more attention recently, the exception for enterprises was included in the original initiative, and the state designated a variety of activities as enterprises starting shortly after TABOR was adopted. The multi-million dollar question is what activity can qualify as an “enterprise.” Multi-million from the perspective of what would or wouldn’t be counted as part of the state’s revenue limit, thereby possibly helping out with budget constraints, but also from the perspective of the penalties TABOR provides. If the state is successfully sued for creating an enterprise in a refund year that doesn’t fit the definition, it potentially faces serious consequences set forth in the constitution. So, while the court has never struck down an enterprise established by the state, it is clear why many want to know what can and cannot be appropriately classified as an enterprise under TABOR.

    The Colorado Constitution defines an enterprise as a “government-owned business authorized to issue its own revenue bonds and receiving under 10% of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments combined.” The reference to “annual revenue in grants” requires an annual determination that an enterprise meets all elements of the enterprise definition. Even from a lawyer’s perspective, this language is less than clear, and its meaning has been heavily debated since 1992. Part 1 of this article gives a primer about those debates. Part 2 – to be posted next week – will cover more recent discussions and will conclude with what the Office thinks we know now.

    PART 1

    After TABOR took effect, the General Assembly passed legislation during the 1993 session to further define some of the terms used in the new constitutional provision in order to assist in administering the law at the state level. Those definitions are laid out in section 24-77-102, C.R.S. The statutory definition of an “enterprise” is identical to what is found in the Constitution. However, that definitional section does clarify the meaning of a “grant” and the “state,” which are not defined in TABOR. Most important is the list of things that are not a “grant,” such as federal funds. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the General Assembly’s ability to define terms since the General Assembly was seeking to comply with the provisions of TABOR by defining the terms consistent with TABOR.

    During the same legislative session, the General Assembly also created several state enterprises. Those enterprises include higher education auxiliary facilities, the state lottery, a student loan division in the department of higher education, and the veterans’ community living centers. No legal challenges were made to the creation of these enterprises. Subsequently, the General Assembly enacted legislation creating additional state enterprises in 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, and most recently in 2016. (A list of state enterprises can be found here.)

    An enterprise created by a duly enacted statute is presumed constitutional. What does this presumption of constitutionality mean? If a person claims that a statute is not constitutional, the courts require that person to prove the statute’s unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt (a very high standard that gives great deference to the General Assembly’s law-making authority). And, if a court can read the statute two ways, a constitutional way and an unconstitutional way, the court must choose the constitutional interpretation. (See “Statutory Construction: Legislative Intent and the Presumptions Used to Interpret Statutes”)

    The first (and only) Colorado Supreme Court case that gave direct guidance regarding the creation of enterprises was decided in 1995 in what is often referred to as the Nicholl decision. The case involved the E-470 Public Highway Authority (Authority), which was created by several counties. One of the counties took issue with some of the actions the Authority was taking and sued, claiming that the Authority violated TABOR’s debt and revenue limitations. In response, the Authority claimed that it was an enterprise and thus not subject to TABOR’s limitations.

    The Colorado Supreme Court broke the issue down into three questions: 1) whether the Authority is “government-owned,” which the Court dispatched with ease (the contracts creating the Authority said it was a political subdivision of the state), 2) whether the Authority is a business, and 3) whether the Authority receives more than 10% of its annual revenue in grants from the state and local governments, which the Court noted it did not. With respect to the second question, the Court said that a business is generally understood to mean an “activity which is conducted in the pursuit of benefit, gain, or livelihood.” The Court found that the Authority was organized with the express intent that it provide access to its highway in exchange for the payment of tolls and user fees, thus indicating that the Authority would fit the general understanding of a business. However, because the Authority had the power to levy a tax, a power that the Court found to be inconsistent with the characteristics of a business and the definition of an enterprise as a whole, the Court held that the Authority was not an enterprise. The General Assembly remedied the problem by immediately passing legislation to eliminate the taxing power of the E-470 Public Highway Authority. Because the Authority has continued to satisfy the three-part test every year since, it remains an enterprise to this day. The Nicholl decision established that, to qualify as a business for enterprise status, an entity’s activities have to be conducted in the pursuit of benefit, gain, or livelihood and the entity may not have the power to tax.

    Because of the lack of an abundance of Colorado Supreme Court cases on this topic, secondary interpretations have been helpful. The Colorado Attorney General, private practitioners, and municipal attorneys have opined on what constitutes an enterprise, so it can be useful to consider their opinions as well.

    In 1995, Gale Norton, the Colorado Attorney General at the time, wrote an opinion to answer the question of whether an enterprise providing internal services such as telecommunications and insurance operations to its government-owner, in addition to the public, disqualifies it from being a business. The conclusion was that such entities are still businesses and therefore can be enterprises. Ms. Norton stated that, in order to meet the “business” requirement, an enterprise must be independent, self-supporting, and financially distinct, and must provide goods and services for a fee. The fact that the enterprise also provides services for a fee to its government-owner doesn’t change the result because the Nicholl decision didn’t question the identity of the customers but examined the activity carried out by the entity. The opinion generally states that an enterprise’s provision of goods and services should be something that is commonly carried on for profit outside the government and that the activities should bear the indicia of arms length, market exchanges.

    Amy Kennedy and Dee P. Wisor, two attorneys practicing in the area of government law, wrote an article in 1998 in The Colorado Lawyer further explaining enterprises. The authors questioned whether there is a necessity for the enterprise to have a “private business analogue” or, in other words, whether the enterprise must have a private business counterpart with customers who freely choose to use it. They argued that the Nicholl decision may have implied the private business analogue was necessary when the Colorado Supreme Court cited to an unrelated case that defined a government business as “a function of a government which offers any goods or services to the public for which there are reasonable substitutes provided by nongovernmental entities.” The authors came to this conclusion: “Unless and until the Colorado Supreme Court directly rules on whether ‘businesses’ under [TABOR] must provide services that also are offered in the private sector,” be careful.

    The Colorado Municipal League (CML) has also weighed in on the issue in its publication “TABOR: A Guide to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.” CML created this publication to assist municipal officials in interpreting and applying TABOR in their local government operations. In both its 1993 and 2011 revised versions, CML points out that there are two interpretations: 1) the business must have some counterpart in the private sector, the “private sector analogue”; or 2) the activity is irrelevant so long as the enterprise subsists on an annual budget which includes less than 10% in state and local grants, making it more or less self-supporting, thus making the revenue stream the determining factor. By recognizing both of these conflicting interpretations, the CML guide illustrates the difficulty of developing a consistent test to determine whether specific governmental activities can be classified as enterprises.

    In 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued the Colorado Bridge Enterprise or CBE decision. This case stemmed from the creation of the Colorado Bridge Enterprise in 2009, defined as a government-owned business within the Colorado Department of Transportation and authorized to impose a bridge safety surcharge on motorists’ registration fees to fix certain Colorado highway bridges. In 2012, the TABOR Foundation filed a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the Colorado Bridge Enterprise does not qualify as an enterprise. The TABOR Foundation relied on Gale Norton’s 1995 opinion that a government-owned business must gain its revenue from market exchanges taking place in a competitive, arms-length manner. However, the Colorado Court of Appeals declined to follow that opinion and decided that the Colorado Bridge Enterprise is indeed an enterprise because it pursues a benefit (fixing bridges) and generates revenue by collecting fees from service users through car registrations, which the Court ruled is not a tax.

    The Colorado Supreme Court declined to take the CBE decision up on appeal, and the Colorado Court of Appeals decision doesn’t provide a thorough analysis indicating that service users must actually attain a benefit for an activity to rise to the level of a business. We can only speculate why the Colorado Supreme Court declined to take the case. We know that Justice Eid would have reviewed the case to look at three issues, including whether an enterprise must involve market exchanges taking place in a competitive, arms-length manner. But one Supreme Court Justice’s opinion on the petition for certiorari doesn’t rise to the level of law. The CBE decision is undoubtedly current law, but it still leaves governmental entities uncertain about what activities can be designated as enterprises. Perhaps CML’s analysis that the entity’s activity is irrelevant so long as all the other factors are checked off is spot on. Perhaps not. At best, the CBE decision begs the question whether the activity, or service provided, would ever be too tenuous to reasonably argue that the entity is truly a business for purposes of enterprise status. Please tune in next week for further discussion on this topic.

  • Legislative Legal Services: Drafting and much more

    by Dan Cartin

    Legislative Legal Services is the General Assembly’s nonpartisan legal counsel and staff agency. Our staff, consisting of attorneys and other professionals, provides a variety of written materials and services to legislators in addition to their bill and amendment drafting needs. We hope each legislator will learn about and make full use of these ancillary services available from our staff during the 2017 session. Please visit the Legislative Legal Services website for a better idea of the types of services and products we can help with. Our homepage is located at leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-of-legislative-legal-services.

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

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

    Our office also provides written legal opinions regarding legislation. Occasionally a legislator will ask us for a written legal opinion on an issue that relates to pending legislation. We hold these requests in strictest confidence. We will not release a written memorandum to other persons without the permission of the legislator who requested it. And we will give the same answer if another legislator asks us the same question, which will result in identical legal opinions for different legislators.

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

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

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

    We are here to help all of the members of the 71st General Assembly achieve a successful legislative session in 2017. We encourage legislators to fully utilize the Legislative Legal Services staff for all of their legislative needs during the session, including those described here that go beyond bill and amendment drafting.