Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

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, district 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 the 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!
March 5, 2015
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 year, 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.

February 26, 2015
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 and 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.

February 19, 2015
Limiting Legalese: The Importance of “Plain English” in the Colorado Revised Statutes

By Gwynne Middleton

Legislators and attorneys get a bad rap when it comes to legalese, that pejorative term relegated to needlessly convoluted jargon often found in legal documents. And rightfully so. Some of the worst offenders of overly complicated writing come from the legal profession. The Center for Plain Language even created an annual award called the WonderMark for the worst legal writing.

But most legal writers don’t set out to confuse their readers. In a litigious society, these writers are tasked with including as much detail as possible in documents to avoid unintended interpretations and future legal debate. Unfortunately, even the best intentions sometimes leave the reader wishing the writer had gone another round at the editing table.

In 1993, the Colorado General Assembly passed a law that requires drafters to write legislation that clearly and concisely communicates legislators’ intent. Known as the “plain language” law, section 2-2-801, C.R.S., expects bill drafters to avoid unnecessary jargon and to aim for “nontechnical language” that “in a clear and coherent manner uses words with common and everyday meaning which are understandable to the average reader.”

Colorado legislative drafters apply this plain language law to each bill they draft. The Office of Legislative Legal Services’s drafting manual includes at least 37 guidelines and numerous examples for how to implement the plain language statute. Below are just a few of the guidelines drafters use to create clean legal writing for legislators’ bills.

Use Active Voice.

In the active voice, the subject and verb relationship is straightforward: the subject is a “be-er” or a “do-er,” and the verb moves the sentence along. In the passive voice, the subject of the sentence is neither a “do-er” nor a “be-er” but is acted upon by some other agent or by something unnamed. For example:

Passive voice (actor absent): A notice shall be mailed to the parties within 15 days after issuance of an order.
Active voice (actor present): The commission shall mail a notice to the parties within 15 days after issuance of an order.
Passive voice: Prescribed forms may be furnished by the county clerk and recorder.
Active voice: The county clerk and recorder may furnish prescribed forms.

Avoid unnecessary jargon, including archaic terms and provisos.

Legal writing has been around for a long time, and though legislators and drafters have updated language to reflect their changing audiences, certain archaic terms, such as “herein” and “heretofore,” as well as provisos (words before a sentence or clause that state an exception to the preceding sentence or clause) pop up in otherwise clear prose and often cloud the meaning of the sentence. For example:

The Archaic Interloper: Any other incidental expenses for the trip not specified herein are the sole responsibility of each participant.
Suggestion: Each participant is solely responsible for any other incidental trip expenses not specified in this section.
The Pesky Proviso: An application for a parking permit shall be approved provided that the applicant has not been fined for more than ten parking violations.
Suggestion: The county clerk must approve an application for a parking permit if (so long as) the applicant has not been convicted of more than ten parking violations.

Avoid being verbose.

Cutting archaic terms and provisos improves sentence clarity because including them in legal writing often indicates a legal writer’s propensity for being verbose. But seasoned legal writers know that cutting the “heretofore” and “provided that” legalese is just the beginning of concise writing. They’ll need to eliminate any unnecessary words and keep sentences short when possible if they want to help their audience understand and retain important information. For example:

Verbose: In the case of Abigail v. Johnson (TC, 1988), the taxpayer was able to exclude from gross income embezzled funds that were repaid during the year the funds were embezzled but the taxpayer was not allowed to exclude embezzled funds to be repaid in a subsequent year.
Concise: Abigail v. Johnson (TC, 1988) allowed the taxpayer to exclude embezzled funds repaid during the same year but not those repaid in a later year.
Verbose: Louise can deduct the $10,000 for the cost of the pool at her new home as a medical expense.
Concise: Louise can deduct the $10,000 cost of the new home’s pool as a medical expense.

Ultimately, by rewording sentences to omit archaic terms and provisos and whittling away unnecessary words, drafters and legislators aim for precision in their language, curbing legalese to compose legislation that’s easier to interpret and implement.

February 5, 2015
Constitutional Rules for Legislation

by Julie Pelegrin

As has been discussed several times in LegiSource, the General Assembly’s authority to legislate is plenary – which means complete or absolute – except as specifically limited by the state constitution. Many of the constitutional restrictions on the power of the General Assembly apply to specific subjects like the ability to tax, requirements regarding the personnel system, funding for public education, and legalizing marijuana. However, there are several that apply to legislation, regardless of the subject.

Art. V, Sec. 21: Single subject requirement
The most well-known requirement that the constitution imposes on legislation is the single subject rule: A bill cannot contain more than one subject, and that subject must be clearly expressed in the bill title. This rule actually does not apply to a bill that only contains appropriations, for example, the annual general appropriations or “long” bill. If a bill contains items that are not included within the subject specified in the bill title, a court may hold that those items are unconstitutional, but the rest of the bill, so long as it does fit within the subject of the bill title, will not be unconstitutional. For more on bill titles, see Keeping a Bill Title Constitutional and Informative; and Bill Title Questions…and Answers.

Art. V, Sec. 18: Each bill must have an enacting clause
To be constitutional, each bill must begin with the phrase, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado.” As a matter of practice, if someone amends a bill to remove the enacting clause, the bill is considered dead.

Art. V, Sec. 17: Laws only passed by bill; bill can’t change from its original purpose
Only a bill can create or amend a law; a resolution, joint resolution, memorial, or joint memorial does not have the force of law and is not enforceable as law. The General Assembly cannot amend a bill so significantly that the bill no longer accomplishes the purpose it was written to accomplish when introduced, as that purpose is expressed in the bill title.

Art. V, Sec. 19: Bills take effect by a particular date; bill cannot be introduced with only a title
When the General Assembly passes a bill, it takes effect on the date specified in the bill. If the bill doesn’t specify a date, the bill takes effect when it is signed, or allowed to become law, by the Governor. A bill that doesn’t include an effective date will include a safety clause. For more on safety clauses and the power to refer measures to the ballot, see How would You Like Your Bill? Questions a Bill Sponsor Must Decide; and The Power of the People – Reservation of the Initiative and Referendum Powers. A legislator cannot introduce a bill that consists only of the bill title; a bill must also include text that sets forth the changes to existing law or makes appropriations.

Art. V, Sec. 31: Revenue bills must start in the House
A bill that raises revenue must be introduced first in the House. The Senate may amend the bill after it passes the House. Several years ago, the Attorney General issued an opinion interpreting this section as applying to bills that raise or reduce state general fund revenue.

Art. V, Sec. 32: General appropriations bill cannot include substantive provisions
The general appropriations bill can only include appropriations to pay the expenses of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, state institutions, interest on the public debt, and public schools. It cannot include substantive changes to the statutes. All other appropriations must be made in separate bills, which may include both substantive and appropriation provisions, and which must comply with the single subject requirement.

Art. V, Sec. 34: Appropriations to private institutions are prohibited
The General Assembly cannot appropriate state moneys for any charitable, industrial, educational, or benevolent purpose to a person, corporation or community that the state does not control. And the General Assembly cannot appropriate moneys to a denominational or sectarian institution or association. It is important to note that the courts, in interpreting and applying this section, have developed a “public purpose” exception to this section. More on that in a later article.

January 30, 2015
ICYMI: A Refresher on the Legislative Rules
With the end of the second full week of the legislative session, committees of reference are looking at calendars full of bills and both houses will soon be spending hours debating bills in committee of the whole and on third reading. While there’s still a little breathing room, we at LegiSource decided it would be helpful to provide a quick refresher on the legislative rules: in general, for committees of reference, for committee of the whole, and for third reading. This collection of articles from the LegiSource archives provides a relatively short primer on the rules and quick references to the rules that are most often invoked. Remember: You can’t play the game if you don’t know the rules!

The Principles of Parliamentary Procedure – a Stepping Stone to Learning the Rules

Obviously, there are many legislative rules, and it’s difficult to learn and remember all of them. You may want to start by learning the basic principles behind legislative procedure. Knowing the principles may help you understand and remember the purposes behind the rules, even if you can’t remember each specific rule. The introduction to Mason’s Manual sets forth these ten principles for group decision making:
- The group must have the authority to take the action it is trying to take.
- The group must meet to take action.
- All members of the group must receive proper notice of the meeting.
- A quorum must be present at the meeting.
- There must be a question before the group that the group is authorized to decide.
- There must be opportunity to debate the question.
- The question must be decided by taking a vote.
- For an action to be taken or a question decided, there must be a majority vote of the group.
- There can be no fraud, trickery, or deception resulting in injury to any member.
- To be valid, an action or decision by the group must not violate any applicable law or constitutional provision.
Making Sense of Committee Rules

As the committees of reference swing into action for the 2014 regular legislative session, some legislators may be struggling to raise their committee rule IQ. This article is a short overview of the more important committee procedural rules to help guide you through the coming hours of committee hearings.

Second Reading and the Committee of the Whole

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “committee of the whole” as “the whole membership of a legislative house sitting as a committee and operating under informal rules.” But just what are those rules and how informal are they?

Third Reading – Overview of Rules

The legislator’s bill has passed the committee of reference, passed the Committee of the Whole on second reading, and is finally calendared for third reading and final passage. There are fewer third-reading rules to learn, but knowing these rules is crucial if the bill sponsor wants to ensure that the bill safely finishes its journey through the House or the Senate.
January 23, 2015
Are Temporary Legislative Rules of Procedure Really Temporary?

by Sharon Eubanks

On January 7, 2015, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the 70th Colorado General Assembly convened amid much pomp and circumstance. The day was filled with a multitude of activities in each chamber – reading the election results for the appropriate chamber as certified by the Secretary of State, calling the roll of members, administering the oath of office, electing a presiding officer, and, of course, delivering speeches. The chambers were filled with Representatives and Senators, their families and friends, legislative staff, and members of the media. It was a headline-making day full of anticipation and excitement.

But both houses performed one activity on opening day that received little notice and is probably even less understood. This activity was adopting the legislative rules of the previous General Assembly – in this instance the 69th General Assembly that first convened in January 2013 – as the temporary legislative rules of the 70th General Assembly.

Wait…what?

It is the long-standing custom and practice of both the Senate and the House to adopt a simple resolution on the first day of session that makes the rules of each chamber of the previous General Assembly the temporary rules of that chamber for the newly convened General Assembly. This year, they accomplished this by passing House Resolution 15-1001 and Senate Resolution 15-001. Also, by adopting a joint resolution, the Senate and the House make the joint rules of the Senate and the House of the previous General Assembly the temporary joint rules of the Senate and the House of the newly convened General Assembly. This year, they passed Senate Joint Resolution 15-001.

While you now know how the General Assembly adopts temporary legislative rules on opening day, you are probably still wondering – why did this legislative custom and practice develop? And when do the temporary rules become permanent?

As to why, the answer is simple. Procedural rules adopted by one legislature are not binding on a subsequent legislature. In fact, the legislative rules adopted by the previous General Assembly automatically expire when a new General Assembly convenes. Once the 70th General Assembly convened on opening day in accordance with constitutional procedures, (see Colo. Const. Art. V, Secs. 2 & 7), neither the Senate nor the House had any legislatively adopted rules to govern their proceedings – no rules on the order of business, the preparation of a calendar and a journal, bill introduction deadlines, motions, voting, or committees. On the first day of the first legislative session, both chambers need to adopt rules for their proceedings as authorized by Colo.Const. Art. V, Sec. 12, and the easiest and quickest way to do so is to adopt the legislative rules of the previous General Assembly as the temporary rules of the new General Assembly.

Sometimes a chamber will change the temporary rules it adopts by amending the rules in the same resolution used to adopt the temporary rules or in resolutions introduced later in the session. For example, it has long been the practice of the House to specify in the same resolution that adopts the temporary House rules that the temporary House rules may be amended by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to the House until the House adopts permanent rules. This is a significant deviation from House Rule 47, which requires a 2/3rds vote of all House members to amend, suspend, or repeal any House rule.

Likewise, the Senate resolution that adopts the temporary Senate rules provides that the temporary rules may be amended by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to the Senate. Otherwise, Senate Rule 34 (a) requires a 2/3rds vote of all members elected to the Senate to amend or repeal a rule unless a Senator gives three days’ notice, in which case a vote of only the majority of members elected is required.

So making the temporary legislative rules of a chamber permanent makes it more difficult to amend or repeal the rules of that chamber, which may help explain why the General Assembly rarely makes temporary legislative rules permanent. In fact, during the last fifty years, the General Assembly and its houses have almost always operated under temporary legislative rules for the entirety of each General Assembly. Which leaves us to ponder the true nature of a temporary legislative rule.

January 15, 2015
Constitution Controls the Start and End of Regular Legislative Sessions
by Patti Dahlberg

Why start the legislative session so early — January 7 — this year? Because it’s the law! The convening date for a legislative session, the length of the legislative session, how much time the Governor has to act on bills as they are passed, and other dates and time periods that come into play during a legislative session are determined by the Colorado Constitution.

Some of the constitutional provisions governing the legislative session have been around since Colorado was a territory. And the citizens of Colorado have voted more provisions into the constitution since Colorado became a state 139 years ago. Either way, constitutional provisions are the ultimate law of this land.

The constitutional provision that determines when the legislative session annually convenes is section 7 of art. V, and requires the General Assembly to meet in regular session at 10 a.m. “no later than the second Wednesday of January each year.” This year, the General Assembly is actually convening on the first Wednesday in January. This is necessary because section 1 of art. IV requires the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to take office by the second Tuesday of January. But section 3 of article IV requires the General Assembly to declare the winner of the election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor or to decide who the winners are if the general election ends in a tie or is contested. To declare the winners, the General Assembly must be in session. So, each time a Governor is elected, the General Assembly must convene before the second Tuesday of January.

Each regular legislative session can last no longer than 120 days, including Saturdays and Sundays and any other days the General Assembly may decide to take off (section 7 of art. V). A regular legislative session can last fewer than 120 days, which has happened as recently as 2008. Section 7 also allows the General Assembly to meet outside of a regular session when convened in a special session by the Governor or by written request of two-thirds of the members of each house. During a special session, the General Assembly can consider only the specific subjects listed in the Governor’s call or in the written request. For more information on special sessions, see “Frequently Asked Questions concerning Special Legislative Sessions”.

Other constitutional provisions regarding the timing of legislative sessions include:
- Section 15 of art. V: During a legislative session, neither the House nor the Senate may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house.
- Section 22 of art. V: Before a bill can become law, the votes on the bill must be taken on two separate days in each house.
- Section 11 of art. IV: The Governor has 10 days during the legislative session in which to sign a bill, veto and return it, or allow the bill to become law without a signature. The Governor has 30 days to act on bills that the General Assembly sends to him or her for signature during the last 10 days of session.
January 1, 2015
The Publications Bill: A Little Bill with a Big Job

by Nate Carr

Each year a small, one-page bill works its way through the legislative process. It’s typically at the front of the legislative bill line, so to speak, and frequently has the honor of gracing the Governor’s desk before many of the other bills have even been heard in the first committee. This bill doesn’t trigger front-page headlines; it rarely, if ever, even makes the news. Why then, does this seemingly insignificant little bill get pushed through the legislative process so quickly?

Well, this little bill has a big job – enacting the compilation of the state’s laws known as the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). Each year the Committee on Legal Services, the legislative committee responsible for overseeing the publication and printing of the Colorado Revised Statutes, sponsors this bill. It is formally titled as a bill Concerning the enactment of Colorado Revised Statutes [Year] as the positive and statutory law of the state of Colorado; however, it is commonly referred to as the “publications bill.” The publications bill enacts the official printed version of the C.R.S. as the positive and statutory law of the State of Colorado. But why is it necessary to enact the C.R.S. annually?

2012 Colorado Revised Statutes/Photo by Ashley Zimmerman

The answer to that question requires some background information. Once the General Assembly adopts a bill, the enrolling room and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) prepare the bill in Act form for presentation to the Governor. Bills that the Governor signs, or that he does not veto, become law and are known as Acts. In the months following the adjournment of each legislative session, the OLLS staff, under the direction of the Revisor of Statutes, incorporates the newly enacted laws into the body of law published in the preceding year’s C.R.S. In addition, staff makes revision changes to correct nonsubstantive grammatical or punctuation errors, harmonizes conflicting bills, and adds voter-approved statutory changes. The Revisor also ensures that the C.R.S. are properly constructed, annotated, and indexed. The authority and guidelines that the Revisor follows to prepare the C.R.S. are located in articles 4 and 5 of title 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Once the publications process is complete, the OLLS sends the data with the new, updated body of law to the state’s official contract printer who prints and distributes the updated sets of Colorado Revised Statutes.

At the legislative session following the printing of the C.R.S., the General Assembly and the Governor move quickly to pass the publications bill. The bill does not change substantive law and may not be used as a vehicle to repeal or otherwise amend legislation enacted by a prior General Assembly or to amend a bill being considered during the same legislative session. Passage of the publications bill usually occurs within a few weeks after the start of the legislative session. Once enacted, the updated C.R.S., as printed by the state’s official contract printer, is deemed to have been properly collated, edited, revised, and constructed. The text of the newly updated C.R.S. becomes legal, irrefutable evidence of the state’s statutory law in a court of law. Without passage of the publications bill, provisions of the published C.R.S. are merely prima facie evidence of the statutory law that may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence.

Back to the question, why is it necessary to enact the C.R.S. annually? Enactment of the publications bill ensures that there is one, comprehensive body of primary statutory law for the state of Colorado on which courts and the public may rely. Without passage of the publications bill, all other bills would need to amend not only the last enacted version of the C.R.S., but also the Session Laws for each subsequent year in which a bill amends the same section of law. Eventually, it would become virtually impossible to know or understand what the statutory law of the state actually is. The publications bill may be a little bill, but it achieves a giant result!

December 18, 2014
After the Bills Pass: The Importance of Legislative Oversight
by Patti Dahlberg

“Legislative oversight” generally refers to a legislature’s review and evaluation of selected activities, services, and operations and the general performance of the executive branch of government. The legislature exercises this oversight to ensure that the executive branch administers new and existing programs efficiently, effectively, and in a manner consistent with legislative intent. Oversight has long been the focus of certain legislative statutory committees and has also become a required part of the hearings and work of the standing committees of reference.

According to a National Conference of State Legislatures article on the Separation of Powers – Legislative Oversight:
In Colorado, ongoing legislative oversight of state agencies occurs through the following methods:

Committee on Legal Services – review of administrative rules – §24-4-103, C.R.S.
The legislature’s review of administrative rules is one way in which the General Assembly exercises legislative oversight of the executive branch. A “rule” is a formal written statement of law that a state agency adopts to carry out statutory policies and administer programs. The General Assembly’s role in the rule-making process is in authorizing an agency to make rules and then reviewing and, if necessary, invalidating rules that are not within the agency’s statutory authority or that conflict with state law. The Committee on Legal Services exercises some of the General Assembly’s rulemaking oversight responsibilities by tracking legislation that requires the adoption of rules and notifying sponsors when required or authorized rules have been adopted and by annually introducing a bill that extends rules that are within the agencies’ statutory authority and allows rules to expire that are outside the agencies’ authority or that conflict with law. For more information on the rule review function of the legislature see “Legislative Oversight of State Agency Rule-making”.

Joint Budget Committee – fiscal oversight of state budget and finances – §2-3-201, C.R.S.
The Joint Budget Committee (JBC) is charged with analyzing the management, operations, programs, and fiscal needs of the departments of state government as part of creating a balanced budget, which the state Constitution requires. The Governor reviews the executive-branch budget requests, sets priorities for funding, and sends the executive-branch budget request to the JBC for consideration. The JBC reviews the Governor’s proposed budget and holds public hearings with each state agency and institution to discuss priorities and answer questions. Based on the information gathered in these hearings and other information provided by the JBC staff, the JBC drafts the annual general appropriations bill, which is introduced during the second half of each legislative session.

Legislative Audit Committee – review of agency performance – §2-3-101, C.R.S.
The Legislative Audit Committee (LAC) assists in overseeing state government by reviewing the audits that the State Auditor performs of all departments, institutions, and agencies of state government and of other public agencies, as well as reviewing other reports the State Auditor may prepare. In addition, the LAC reviews a number of annual performance audits required by §2-7-204, C.R.S., and conducted by the State Auditor’s office. According to Wikipedia, “an independent examination of a program, function, operation or the management systems and procedures of a governmental or non-profit entity to assess whether the entity is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of available resources.” Based on recommendations from the State Auditor, the LAC may introduce legislation to create or clarify statutes identified in the audit reports.

Legislative oversight of principal departments – §2-7-101, C.R.S.
Section 2-7-101, C.R.S., better known as the SMART Act,* requires each legislative joint committee of reference to conduct hearings with assigned executive-branch departments regarding each department’s performance plans, regulatory agendas, budget requests, and associated legislative agendas – before each session. The goal of these hearings is for legislators to get a better sense of what is going on in the executive branch by asking questions, making sure that the departments are implementing laws as expected, and learning about departments’ legislative agendas before the legislative session starts. The appropriate joint committee of reference is notified when a department does not complete state auditor recommendations in a timely manner and when a department does not adopt legislatively required or authorized rules. The JBC will also use the departments’ performance plans to help prioritize departments’ requests for new funding. For more information regarding the SMART Act, see “So you think you’re so SMART?”

Sunset Review Process – review of regulatory agencies and functions – §§2-3-1203 and 24-34-104, C.R.S.
A number of entities, functions, boards, and advisory committees within state government are scheduled to terminate each year due to statutory repeal or “sunset” provisions. Under the sunset process, the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) regularly reviews the functions of each state regulatory agency, division, or board, and each advisory committee, before its termination date, to determine whether the agency, division, board, or advisory committee should continue performing its functions with or without modifications. DORA issues a report to the General Assembly that a committee of reference reviews during the legislative session in a public hearing, which can include testimony from the program’s administrators and interested members of the public. The General Assembly must act by bill to continue the functions provided by an agency, division, board, or advisory committee. If the General Assembly does not act, the agency, division, or board goes into a one-year wind up period. If the General Assembly does not pass a bill to continue an advisory committee, the committee is repealed on the scheduled sunset date. For additional information regarding the sunset review process in Colorado see “The Sunset Process: Legislative Review of Regulatory Agencies and Functions” and “Sunset Reviews Conducted by Standing Committees”.

* State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act
December 4, 2014