Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Question Remains Whether Legislators Can Challenge Constitutionality of TABOR

    by Sharon Eubanks

    If a legislature does not have the power to impose new taxes or raise the amount of existing taxes, does the state enjoy a republican form of government? Some think not.

    supreme courtIn late May of 2011, 34 plaintiffs, including members of the General Assembly, local government officials, educators and education officials, and citizens of Colorado, filed a lawsuit against Governor John Hickenlooper in his official capacity and the State of Colorado in federal District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit is entitled Kerr v. Hickenlooper because Senator Andy Kerr, one of three current legislators who are plaintiffs, is the first plaintiff listed on the complaint.

    The plaintiffs allege that the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, violates the Guarantee Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and section 4 of the Colorado Enabling Act of 1875 by eliminating the General Assembly’s plenary power to legislate on matters of taxation and appropriations and thereby denying the state of Colorado and its citizens an effective representative democracy. As part of their claims, the plaintiffs argue that TABOR has inflicted an institutional injury upon all members of the General Assembly by removing their ability to enact taxes to provide for the state’s expenses, thus rendering the General Assembly unable to effectively fulfill its legislative obligations in a representative democracy and a republican form of government.

    In response to this lawsuit, the Attorney General filed a motion on behalf of Governor Hickenlooper in mid-August of 2011 asking the federal District Court to dismiss the lawsuit on several procedural grounds, including: 1) plaintiffs’ claims constitute nonjusticiable political questions that neither the federal District Court nor any other court can resolve on the merits; and 2) even if these questions could be resolved, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit. In July of 2012, the federal District Court denied the Governor’s motion to dismiss on all grounds except the Equal Protection Claim.

    The Governor appealed the federal District Court’s order to the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was assigned to a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit, which affirmed the federal District Court’s order. Next the Governor filed a petition for rehearing before the entire membership of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc, and the Governor filed a petition for writ of certiorari appealing the federal District Court’s order to the United States Supreme Court. After both parties and several amicus curiae (“friends of the court”) filed briefs on the petition, the matter was scheduled for discussion at the January 9, 2015, conference of the Supreme Court Justices.

    The Justices’ conference is a private meeting of the Supreme Court Justices to discuss a short list of cases they are considering for review. The Justices’ decision to grant or deny review is usually announced shortly after the Justices’ conference. However, in this case, the Supreme Court did not immediately announce any decision as to whether the Supreme Court would hear the appeal of the procedural issues raised in Kerr v. Hickenlooper.

    Some speculated that the Supreme Court was waiting to announce its decision until after the Court issued its decision in another case it heard this term – Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission et al. In this case, Arizona’s Legislature challenged the constitutionality of a redistricting commission created by ballot initiative to draw congressional districts. One of the issues raised in the Arizona State Legislature case is whether the Legislature has standing to bring the lawsuit, so the Supreme Court’s decision ingavel 5-8 this case could have implications for the Legislator-Plaintiffs’ standing in Kerr v. Hickenlooper. It turns out that this speculation was correct.

    On June 30, 2015, the last day of the Supreme Court’s October 2014 term, the Supreme Court issued a grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) order in Kerr v. Hickenlooper, which granted the Governor’s petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanded the matter back to the 10th Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision issued the day before in Arizona State Legislature. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the Arizona Legislature, as an institution, has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the redistricting commission even though the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of the redistricting commission.

    As a result of the Supreme Court’s GVR order in Kerr v. Hickenlooper, the 10th Circuit has established July 31, 2015, as the deadline for parties and amicus curiae to file supplemental briefs on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona State Legislature on the issue of the Legislator-Plaintiffs’ standing.

    Watch for further developments in this lawsuit.

  • Colorado LegiSource is on hiatus

    The Colorado LegiSource will be taking a break for the next several weeks. We expect to resume weekly postings on July 9. In the meantime, if you have questions you would like answered or issues you would like to see discussed on the Colorado LegiSource, please contact us using our feedback form.

  • Gavels Adjourn the First Regular Session of the 70th General Assembly

    by Julie Pelegrin

    One hundred twenty days of heavy lifting, deep diving, guard-rail strengthening, collaborating, and serious negotiating came to an end Wednesday evening. At 8:02 p.m. in the House and 8:11 p.m. in the Senate, the Speaker and the President banged the gavels to adjourn the first regular session of the 70th General Assembly sine die.

    gavel 5-8As is usually the case when one party controls the House and another controls the Senate, there were many bills, resolutions, and memorials introduced, but not many passed. Starting in January, the General Assembly introduced 682 bills. By last night, they passed 367 of them – a pass rate of 54%. This compares with pass rates of:

    • 68% in 2013 and 72% in 2014 when the same party held the majority in both houses;
    • 56% in both 2011 and 2012 when control of the houses was split between the parties; and
    • Pass rates of 70% or higher for each of the 2007 through 2010 regular legislative sessions when the same party again held the majority in both houses.

    As usual, the General Assembly tackled several difficult and contentious issues – red light cameras, changes to birth certificates, K-12 assessments, rain barrels, guns, abortion, TABOR refunds, governmental immunity for school districts, requirements affecting peace officers, student data privacy, workforce development, felony DUI, and, of course, the state budget – just to name a few.

    Before the session ended, the General Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution 15-028, which sets Wednesday, January 13, 2016, as the convening date for the second regular legislative session of the 70th General Assembly.

    Between now and next January, some legislators will be busy meeting in interim committees. In addition to the pre-existing statutory committees, the General Assembly approved several new interim committees. This interim, watch the Legislative Council website for meetings of:

    • The transportation legislative review committee;
    • The early childhood and school readiness legislative commission;
    • The police officers’ and firefighters’ pension reform commission;
    • The water resources review committee;
    • The interim committee to study vocational rehabilitative services for the blind;
    • The interim committee to study profiling-initiated contacts by law enforcement;
    • The interim committee on school safety and youth in crisis;
    • The Colorado health insurance exchange oversight committee – formerly known as the health benefit exchange implementation review committee; and
    • The off-highway vehicle task force.

    And the legislative staff agencies – Legislative Council Staff, the Office of Legislative Legal Services, the Joint Budget Committee Staff, and the State Auditors’ Office, as well as the staff of the House and the Senate – will be working the full interim. First, there’s session work to wrap up, including enrolling and finalizing the bills that passed, finalizing the state budget, and publishing the new Session Laws and the new statutes. Then staff will be busy reviewing executive branch rules, auditing state agencies and programs, staffing interim committees, researching legal, policy, and fiscal issues, and generally preparing for the next legislative session.

    And, starting July 9, we’ll be back publishing weekly articles to the LegiSource. If there’s a topic you would like us to address, please let us know by emailing feedback@legisource.net.

    Legislators who want to start working on their ideas for legislation for the next legislative session can submit research requests and bill requests to the Office of Legislative Legal Services by emailing olls.ga@coleg.gov or or calling (303) 866-2045.

  • What’s So Important About a 10-day bill? How About a 30-day bill?

    By Kathy Zambrano

    As the General Assembly moves toward the end of the regular legislative session, you may hear the terms “10-day bill” and “30-day bill” bouncing around the capitol hallways. What’s the meaning of these terms? And why does the General Assembly care?

    Section 11 of article IV of the state constitution specifies that every bill passed by the General Assembly must be presented to the Governor before it can become law. If the Governor approves of the bill, he or she signs it and returns it to the legislative house of origin with a letter detailing the date on and time at which he or she signed it. If the Governor vetoes a bill, it is returned to the house of origin along with an explanation of the Governor’s objections, which are then printed in the journal of the House of Representatives or the Senate, whichever is the house of origin.

    number 10If there are 10 days or more left in the legislative session when the Governor receives the bill, the Governor must act within 10 days after receiving the bill or it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. If there are fewer than 10 days left in the session or the General Assembly has already adjourned when the Governor receives the bill, the Governor has 30 days after the date of adjournment in which to approve the bill, allow the bill to become law, or veto the bill and file it with the Secretary of State.

    If the General Assembly is still in session when the Governor vetoes a bill, the bill is calendared for “consideration of Governor’s veto” in the house of origin. Two-thirds of the members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate must vote affirmatively in order to override the veto.

    So, a 10-day bill is a bill that the Governor must act on before the end of the legislative session. And, if the Governor vetoes a 10-day bill, the General Assembly may override the veto. With a 30-day bill, the Governor can wait until after the session is over to act on the bill. If the Governor decides to veto a 30-day bill, the General Assembly cannot override the veto.

    To comply with the constitution, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Governor’s office enter into a formal memorandum of understanding regarding the details for delivering and returning bills, computing the ten-day and thirty-day periods for action by the Governor, and calculating the date when bills become law without the Governor’s signature.

    Delivery and return of bills. The House, the Senate, and the Governor’s office agree to maintain regular weekday business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During these hours, staff must be available to accept any documents, bills, or other communications from the Governor or the House or Senate. The parties agree to provide advance notice of any unusual circumstances relating to the delivery or return of bills. The delivery or return of bills is typically made within the regular business hours of the office unless other special arrangements are agreed to in advance.

    When the Governor signs or vetoes a bill or allows a bill to become law without his or her signature, the Governor’s office delivers a letter from the Governor to the house of origin as soon as possible on the same day the bill is signed or vetoed or allowed to become law or, if the bill is signed or vetoed after business hours, the Governor’s office will deliver the letter the next morning that the house of origin is in session.

    Computing 10-day and 30-day periods. In counting the 10-day period for action on a bill, the day that delivery is actually made is not counted. For example, if a bill is delivered to the Governor on a Monday, the first day of thecounting days 10-day clock for the Governor’s action is Tuesday. Since Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are considered legislative days, they are counted in calculating the 10-day period.

    However, if the 10th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the day on which the bill must be returned to the General Assembly is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. For example, if the House or Senate delivered a bill on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, the 10th day would fall on Saturday, February 21, 2015. The Governor need not return the bill on Saturday or Sunday because the 10th day would be extended to Monday, February 23, 2015. If the Governor did not sign or veto the bill, it would become law at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. Similarly, if the House or Senate delivers a bill on a Wednesday and the 10th day is extended from Saturday to a Monday, but the Monday is also a holiday, the return date will be further extended to Tuesday.

    This seems pretty straight forward, but if the General Assembly or the house to which a bill is to be returned is in session and conducting business on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, and the 10th day falls on that day (for example, President’s Day), then the Governor must return the bill on that day. For example, if the Senate delivers a bill on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the 10th day is Saturday, March 14, 2015. If the House was adjourned for the weekend but the Senate was in session and conducting business on Saturday, March 14, 2015, the Senate bill must be returned by that date. If a bill is delivered on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, the 10th day is Saturday, February 14, 2015. The 10th day would therefore extend to Monday, February 16, 2015. While February 16, 2015, is a holiday (Presidents’ Day), if the General Assembly or the house to which a bill is to be returned is in session on the Monday holiday, then the Governor must return the bill by that date.

    If the Governor does not sign or veto a bill but allows it to become law without his or her signature, it becomes law at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the end of the 10-day period. For example, a bill delivered to the Governor on Monday, February 2, 2015, would have to be acted on and returned to the house of introduction by the 10th day following delivery, Thursday, February 12, 2015. If no action is taken, it would become law without the Governor’s signature on the 11th day following delivery, Friday, February 13, 2015, at 12:01 a.m. A bill delivered to the Governor on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, would become law without the Governor’s signature on Saturday, February 14, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

    If the General Assembly prevents the return of a bill during the 10-day period by adjourning sine die, the Governor has an additional 30 consecutive days after adjournment within which he or she may sign or veto a bill number 30and file it with his or her objections with the office of the Secretary of State. The Governor must also act within this 30-day period on all bills enacted during the session and delivered after adjournment. If the Governor neither signs nor vetoes a bill but files it with the Secretary of State within the 30-day period, then it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. The 30-day period begins to run on the day following the day that the General Assembly adjourns sine die. The same rules apply in counting the 30-day period as apply in counting the 10-day period. For example, if the House or Senate delivers a bill to the Governor on Monday, April 27, 2015, the Governor may elect to take no action before adjournment and have an additional 30 days to act. The 10th day is Thursday, May 7, 2015. If no action is taken before the expiration of the 30-day period on Friday, June 5, 2015, the bill will become law on Saturday, June 6, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

    Important dates to know in April:

    • For purposes of the 2015 Legislative Session, the 10-day clock expires April 24, 2015, assuming that neither house of the General Assembly works the weekend of April 25 and 26.
    • All bills delivered to the Governor beginning Monday, April 27, 2015, are considered 30-day bills since the General Assembly must adjourn sine die, Wednesday, May 6, and the 10-day clock will expire Thursday, May 7.

  • April 15 is Tax Day….But It’s Also Gift Reporting Day! Are You Ready?

    by Jennifer Gilroy

    The deadline. We all know that April 15th is the last day to file tax returns, but did you remember that it’s also the day you have to file your quarterly gifts and honoraria disclosure statement with the Secretary of State’s office? Section 24-6-203, C.R.S., requires every incumbent in, or candidate elected to, public office (that includes legislators) to file a report with the Secretary of State’s office every January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15 gift boxdisclosing all of the gifts and honoraria received in connection with his or her public service since the last reporting date.

    Well, actually, as an incumbent or newly elected official you don’t have to report everything you’ve received in connection with your public service. There are exceptions. But it’s really confusing to figure out just exactly what you must report. And then, to complicate matters further, the laws identifying the gifts you are permitted and not permitted to accept are completely separate and distinct from the law describing the gifts you must report each quarter. As tempting as it is, don’t allow yourself to be tripped up by thinking they are the same. They are not.

    The details. Let’s break it down. Once you’ve been sworn in to office, you must submit a report to the Secretary of State’s office each quarter (on their form) disclosing certain gifts and honoraria that you have received in connection with your public service. The law provides a list of items you must report and a list of items that you don’t have to report, but you may choose to report. Of course if, since the last reporting date, you have not received any gifts, honorarium payments, or other items that the statute requires you to disclose then you do not have to file a report at all.

     

    report

     

     

    • Honoraria – payments you’ve received for giving a speech or making an appearance or authoring a publication.
    • Travel and lodging – payments or reimbursements you’ve received for expenses you’ve incurred for travel  and lodging to attend a convention, fact-finding mission or trip, or other meeting that you are permitted to accept under Amendment 41, unless the payment or reimbursement of the expenses is made from public funds of a state or local government or from an association of public officials or public entities whose membership includes the reporting individual’s office or governmental entity (in which case you may report, but you are not required to). You must also report payments or reimbursements for those same types of travel and lodging expenses if they are paid for by a “joint governmental agency” to which the state pays dues, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, or the Energy Council.
    • Meals – a gift of a meal at a fund-raising event of a political party.

     

    report not

     

     

    • Campaign contributions – campaign contributions you’ve received that you’ve already reported under the Fair Campaign Practices Act.
    • Unsolicited tokens or awards – unsolicited items of trivial value and unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation.
    • Travel and lodging – As stated earlier, if a state or local government or an association of public officials or public entities whose membership includes the reporting individual’s office or governmental entity pays, or reimburses you, for expenses you’ve incurred for travel and lodging to attend a convention, fact-finding mission or trip, or other meeting that you are permitted to accept under Amendment 41, you do not have to report the payment or reimbursement.
    • Salary – payment of salary from employment, including other government employment, that is in addition to what you earn as a member of the General Assembly (although you should be disclosing the source(s) of that income on another report you must file with the Secretary of State’s office pursuant to §24-6-202, C.R.S.
    • Amendment-41-permitted gifts – any other gifts or things of value that you are permitted to solicit, accept, or receive pursuant to Amendment 41.

     

    The crime. Clear as mud? It is a confusing area of law. And yet any person who willfully files a false or incomplete gifts and honoraria report is guilty of a misdemeanor and, if convicted, may be subject to a fine of up to $1,000. So you should take some time and be thoughtful about what you need to report. The same section of law requires those who provide you with an item that you must report to furnish you with a written statement of the dollar value of the item. But this doesn’t always happen, so don’t rely on it. Just because the donor of a gift didn’t give you a statement of value, it doesn’t mean you don’t have to report the item.

    The form and resources. The form you must use to report gifts and honoraria is available on the Secretary of State’s webpage. The Majority and Minority offices in both chambers also have hard copies of the form if you prefer.

    Questions about the gifts and honoraria reporting requirements should be directed to the Secretary of State’s office at (303) 894-2200. And you may always contact the OLLS with any questions you have related to gifts and honoraria reporting or consult our indispensable “Ethics Flash Card”, on the back of which you’ll find a summary of the reporting requirements entitled, “Do I Need to Report this Gift to the SOS?”.

    Don’t forget, the deadline is April 15th!

  • GAVEL Requirements: Thou Shalt Consider & Vote

    by Jery Payne

    Last week we discussed what a supermotion is and what a GAVEL motion is. If you missed it, you might want to check it out. It’s not necessary to read that article, but it may be helpful.

    Whether by supermotion or not, GAVEL allows a bill to skip ahead in the normal process. But depending on how this is done, it can mean the process fails to meet a constitutional requirement.

    Ironically, the constitutional requirement also comes from the GAVEL amendments to the Colorado Constitution, Section 20 of article V: “Every measure referred to a committee of reference of either house shall be considered by the committee upon its merits, and no rule of either house shall deny the opportunity for consideration and vote by a committee of reference….” This language was litigated in the case of Grossman v. Dean.

    The court of appeals held that this provision creates “a legally protected right for each legislator to have a committee of reference consider and vote on a bill on its merits.” So each bill must be both considered and voted on.

    committee hearing 4-2Now, I’ll bet some of you are thinking: “What does ‘considered’ mean?”

    Does it require a hearing? Probably, but that only begs the question of what has to happen in the hearing.

    Does it mean a vote? Yes, but in Grossman v. Dean, the court held that a mere vote isn’t enough. Section 20 of article V specifically mentions both (1) consideration and (2) a vote. So the court held that merely voting isn’t enough.

    Does it mean discussion, debate, or testimony? The committee probably has to do at least one of them, but it probably doesn’t have to do all three. Each would fulfill the consideration requirement, but any one is not necessary:

    [T]he intent of GAVEL in requiring “consideration” was that legislators be precluded from completely prohibiting interactive committee consideration of the merits of a bill, which interaction normally includes some level of discussion, debate, or testimony. … The amendment … leaves the General Assembly to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the level of discussion, debate, or testimony that is required.

    So GAVEL requires at least a bit of discussion, testimony, or debate. But the details are left to the General Assembly. House Rule 25 (j) (1) (E.2) delegates this discretion to the committee chair. So unless a statute or legislative rule says otherwise, the committee chair makes these decisions.

  • Is it a motion? Is it a COW motion? No! It’s a Supermotion!

    By Jery Payne

    Imagine you’re sitting down to hear testimony at a committee hearing. People are signing up to testify. The committee chair asks the sponsor to explain the bill. And another member says, “I move the bill to the committee of the whole.” The chair says the motion is in order, and you think, “No, it’s the wrong order. The motion is the last part of the hearing. And isn’t this bill supposed to go to Finance Committee? What’s going on?” Someone says, “It’s a supermotion!”

    Nope. Although this situation does not follow normal practice, this motion is not a supermotion.

    gavel 3-26In 1988, the people approved a group of amendments to the Colorado Constitution. These amendments are known as GAVEL, which stands for “give a vote to every legislator.” One of these amendments is Section 20 of Article V, “A motion that the committee report the measure favorably to the committee of the whole, with or without amendments, shall always be in order within appropriate deadlines.” Of course, moving a bill to the committee of the whole is normal practice. But GAVEL made it possible for a person to make this motion at any time without the possibility of the chair ruling the motion out of order. So if a bill hasn’t missed a deadline, it may be considered and moved to the committee of the whole. In other words, GAVEL was intended to stop a committee chair from refusing to schedule a bill. This is known as a pocket veto.

    A supermotion still refers a bill to the committee of the whole, but it’s made under House Rule 25 (j) (1) (G), which reads, “If a motion is made that a committee report a measure favorably to the committee of the whole … when such measure is not in the order of business …, then such measure shall be considered by the committeesupermotion upon its merits.” So a bill can be moved to the committee of the whole even when it’s not being heard as scheduled. This can mean either when the bill has been scheduled on the committee’s calendar but hasn’t been taken up yet or even when the bill hasn’t been so scheduled.

    Because of this overlap, confusion is common. In Grossman v. Dean, the appeals court cited both these sources of authority to define “supermotion”: “[A] motion becomes a supermotion under the GAVEL amendment and the House Rule when it is made out of order of the calendared business of the committee.” Neither GAVEL nor House Rule 25 actually use the word “supermotion,” the word itself is legislative slang. So you can’t look it up.

    In the example above, the motion is made when the bill has already been brought up by the chair according to the committee’s calendar. So the bill’s scheduled hearing has begun. It becomes a “supermotion” only when a legislator goes over the chair’s head. A supermotion bucks the calendar. This is what makes it super.

    Speaking of GAVEL and Grossman v. Dean, the court held that these types of motions can lead to a constitutional problem. GAVEL also has other requirements that need to be met. I’ll discuss them next week.

  • Marijuana Tax Revenues: Refund Madness!

    By Sharon Eubanks

    What’s up with the news reports saying the state has to refund state tax revenues collected on recreational marijuana? Didn’t voters already approve recreational marijuana and two new state taxes on recreational marijuana at two separate elections? It makes no sense that the state will have to refund tax revenues collected on recreational marijuana. Why are these refunds required? Well, here’s the scoop.

    At the statewide election held in November of 2013, Proposition AA asked voters to approve imposing two new taxes on legalized recreational marijuana – a state excise tax and an additional state sales tax. Because this ballot question included tax increases, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR) required the state to include certain financial information in the Blue Book, which is the ballot information booklet that Legislative Council Staff prepares and provides to the public before an election.

    TABOR requires the Blue Book to include “[f]or the first full fiscal year of each proposed district tax increase, blue bookdistrict estimates for the maximum dollar amount of each increase and of district fiscal year spending without the increase.” (TABOR Section 20 (3)(b)(iii).) To comply with these requirements, the 2013 Blue Book analysis for Proposition AA included the following estimates for fiscal year 2014-15:

    • State Spending Without the New Taxes   —  $12.08 billion
    • State Revenue from the New Excise and Sales Taxes  —   $67 million

    TABOR imposes consequences if the actual fiscal year spending and revenue amounts from an approved tax increase exceed the estimates provided to voters before the election. Specifically, TABOR Section 20 (3)(c) requires that, if either the resulting tax revenue or actual fiscal year spending exceeds the Blue Book estimates, then the voter-approved tax increase is reduced and the state must refund the revenues that exceed the estimates. The only way to avoid these impacts is “by later voter approval.” The General Assembly may obtain this later voter approval by referring a ballot question to prevent the tax rate reduction and to allow the state to keep all of its revenue.

    If the recreational marijuana tax revenue in 2014-15 exceeds the Blue Book estimate of $67 million or if actual state fiscal year spending in 2014-15 exceeds the estimate of $12.08 billion, and the state has not obtained the later voter approval, then the state must:

    • Reduce the rates of the recreational marijuana taxes; and
    • Refund amounts that exceed the Blue Book estimates for fiscal year 2014-15 up to the total amount of the recreational marijuana tax revenues collected in that fiscal year.

    Based on the Legislative Council Staff’s December 2014 Revenue Forecast, it is currently projected that the amount of recreational marijuana taxes collected in fiscal year 2014-15 will be $58.7 million, which is below thegreen piggy bank Blue Book estimate, and fiscal year spending for fiscal year 2014-15 will be $12.347.3 billion, which is above the Blue Book estimate. These estimates will likely change in subsequent revenue forecasts, but legislative staff expects that, by the end of fiscal year 2014-15, total recreational marijuana tax revenues will remain below the Blue Book estimate and actual fiscal year spending will still exceed the Blue Book estimate.

    With total fiscal year spending for fiscal year 2014-15 likely to exceed the Blue Book estimate, the General Assembly may consider legislation during the 2015 session to:

    • Refer a ballot question at the 2015 statewide election to prevent the recreational marijuana tax rate reductions and allow the state to keep all of its FY 2014-15 revenue above the Blue Book estimates; or
    • Specify how to comply with TABOR in terms of how to reduce the rates of the recreational marijuana taxes, how to refund the marijuana tax revenues and to whom, and what revenues to use to accomplish this refund (e.g., recreational marijuana tax revenues or general fund revenues).

    To date, a legislator has not introduced a bill dealing with these issues. But the 2015 session is only almost half over, so there is still time for the General Assembly to take up this issue. Stay tuned!

  • New and Improved Appropriation Clause Coming Soon to a Bill Near You

    By Ed DeCecco and Sharon Eubanks

    A critical part of legislation that creates a new program or changes an existing one is the appropriation clause. Through this clause, the General Assembly exercises its plenary power of the purse and authorizes an agency to spend state money from an identified source for a particular purpose, usually for a limited time. Recently, the trend has been to include more details in the clauses, but their basic format has essentially been the same for over a century. During that time, the clauses have been interpreted and applied without much controversy.

    Yet, after an internal review, the staff of the Office of Legislative Legal Services and the Joint Budget Committee believed that the appropriation clauses could be improved. The existing clauses, although functional, are difficult to understand. Specifically, the legislative staff thought the appropriation clauses should be rewritten to remove unnecessary language, which could be codified; to increase legal accuracy; and to improve readability. The changes, however, are not intended to affect the meaning of the appropriation clauses or how the State Controller allows a department to spend its money.

    To ensure that the new format would not change the status quo, legislative staff vetted the clauses with the Executive Branch – the State Controller’s Office, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, and all of the departments. Their feedback was very positive, and they did not identify any serious obstacles to adopting the proposed format, though legislative staff did incorporate several changes based on the departments’ suggestions. The legislative staff then presented the proposed new format for appropriation clauses to the Joint Budget Committee for approval. The Committee approved the use of the new format beginning with the 2015 legislative session.

    Here is a typical, simple appropriation clause written in the new format:

           SECTION _. Appropriation. For the 2015-16 state fiscal year, $73,972 is appropriated to the department of public health and environment for use by the prevention services division. This appropriation is from the general fund and is based on an assumption that the division will require an additional 0.9 FTE. To implement this act, the division may use this appropriation for the suicide prevention program.

    Rather than writing the appropriation clause as a single, lengthy sentence as was previously the case, this new format for an appropriation clause employs a three sentence structure. The first sentence describes the fiscal money bagyear, the amount of the appropriation, and the department, including the division that will use the appropriation. So, with a cursory review, a reader will know the essential information about the appropriation.

    The second sentence identifies the source of the appropriation. If the source is a cash fund, the sentence will include the statutory citation for the fund, but that is unnecessary for the general fund. Also, rather than “appropriating” an FTE, it describes the associated FTE consistent with the definition of “FTE” in §24-75-112 (1) (d) (V), C.R.S., which applies to the Long Bill and complies with Colorado case law.

    The third sentence specifically identifies how the department, or in this case the division, is permitted to use the appropriation. In many instances, this last sentence will include additional details about a program or a subdivision within the Long Bill so that the specified use corresponds to a Long Bill appropriation.

    A key feature of the new format is what is excluded from the appropriation clause. Three phrases previously included in a clause – “In addition to any other appropriation”, “not otherwise appropriated”, and “or so much thereof as may be necessary” – are omitted from this new version. Instead these phrases are codified in Senate Bill 15-098, which the Governor signed into law on February 25, 2015. So the phrases will still apply to, but not clutter, each clause.

    Legislative staff has created variations on this new standard format, including an appropriation clause that contains multiple purposes and a clause that directly syncs with an appropriation or series of appropriations made in the Long Bill. It is likely that a majority of appropriation clauses will be variations of the new three-sentence standard format or one of these other two clauses.

    Without changing the meaning of appropriation clauses, legislative staff believes that appropriation clauses are now much easier to read. Hopefully you agree.

  • Not Even a Cup of Coffee: Gift Bans on Lobbyists Can Directly Affect Legislators!

    by Jennifer Gilroy

    You have been invited to a breakfast meeting at Panera’s at which a speaker will address the topic of student assessments, a topic of great interest to your constituents and one that you are interested in learning more about since you are aware of at least six bills introduced on the subject. As luck would have it, your calendar is actually open that morning.

    Good learning topic:   √  Check

    Free time slot:   √  Check

    Amendment 41 compliant:   √  Che…well…you stop to evaluate the invitation.

    While you have not been asked to speak at this event so you’re not on the agenda, you believe you may still accept the invitation to the breakfast because you’ve been to Panera’s before and you’re pretty certain that you can keep your check under $53 so that you won’t be violating the constitution’s gift ban…Check! You tell your aide to RSVP and add it to your calendar.

    Not so fast! Sure you can enjoy a nice breakfast and learn something useful all for under $53, but did you consider who is paying for your coffee and pastry at Panera’s? Yes, that’s another little wrinkle in Amendment 41 (Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution) that can trip you up if you don’t ask the right questions. Most legislators andcoffee mug legislative staff know that they are subject to two gift bans under Amendment 41: One that prevents them from taking money from others, with certain expressed exceptions; and another that prevents them from accepting gifts or things of value exceeding a cumulative annual total of $53, with a few important exceptions. But if the “gift” (here a meal) has a value less than $53, what’s the problem? It’s not even necessary to look at the exceptions. Right? I mean, it’s just a cup of coffee after all.

    Wrong. The problem in this case comes down to who’s paying for your breakfast. It may not have said so on the invitation, but if you asked, you would know that Glen McHandshake, lobbyist, is paying for the attendees’ meals. Why is that a problem? Because Amendment 41 actually establishes a third gift ban: Professional lobbyists cannot give (or arrange to give) a legislator or legislative staff (among other public officers and government employees) any gift or thing of value of any kind or nature…or amount! In fact, the constitution even says that a professional lobbyist cannot knowingly pay for any meal, beverage, or other item to be consumed, regardless of whether it’s offered in the course of the lobbyist’s business or in connection with a personal or social event. Not even a cup of coffee!

    You probably noticed that this is a gift ban on the professional lobbyist, not on you as a member of the General Assembly. However, because professional lobbyists cannot give anything to a legislator or a legislative employee, it is recommended that you not accept anything from a professional lobbyist. That may seem like a very restrictive approach, but consider the posture of both Amendment 41 and the statutory Code of Ethics. The very first section of Amendment 41 reminds you that public officers, and legislators specifically, hold the respect and confidence of the people of the state of Colorado. This section further states that public officers should avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates even a “justifiable impression” among members of the public that this trust is being violated.

    In other words, even appearances can affect the public’s trust and confidence in the General Assembly and its members. The likely reason that the voters of Colorado decided that professional lobbyists should not give anything to legislators and other public officers and government employees was to avoid even the appearance that the lobbyist was buying favors or official action in exchange for the gift.

    The statutory code of ethics also addresses this concept. It states right up front that the public trust is based on the confidence the electorate places in the integrity of the public officers and legislators it elects to office and in those who are otherwise employed as government employees. We all know that actions speak louder than words. Accepting a meal, or even a cup of coffee, from a professional lobbyist who is seeking your vote or other official action on a matter pending before the General Assembly may give the appearance to the public that the lobbyist is “buying,” or at least potentially attempting to influence, your vote or action. You can avoid that appearance altogether by attending the event and simply paying your own way.

    The take-away message is this:  While an invitation may look good in all respects, you need to take that extra step to ensure that you are in full compliance with the law. Always ask who is paying for the gift. But even if Mr. McHandshake is picking up the tab, it doesn’t mean you have to miss the event. Tell them you will attend, but you will pay for your own cup of coffee.